BT 

256 
36 


UC-NRLF 


\ 


THE 


MESSIANIC  IDEAL  OF  ISAIAH 


A  DISSERTATION 

Presented  to  the  Faculty  of  Bryn  Mawr  College 

in  part  fulfilment  of  the  requirement  for 

the  degree  of  doctor  of  philosophy 

June  1917 


LOUISE  PETTIBONE  SMITH 


•  •    • 

•  •  • 


THE 

MESSIANIC  IDEAL  OF  ISAIAH 


A  DISSERTATION 

Presented  to  the  Faculty  of  Bryn  Mawr  College 

in  part  fulfilment  of  the  requirement  for 

the  degree  of  doctor  of  philosophy 

June  1917 


LOUISE  PETTIBONE  SMITH 


/  158'* ?.'*!'. '   ';  LjOT/telsrA'L  of  biblical  literature 


THE  MESSIANIC  IDEAL  OF  ISAIAH 

Louise  Pettibone  Smith 

Wellesley  College 

INTRODUCTION 

In  the  first  thirty-nine  chapters  of  the  book  of  Isaiah  four  pas- 
sages are  especially  important  in  determining  the  course  of  the 
development  of  the  Messianic  ideal  of  Israel,  namely  1 :  24-27 ; 
9  :  1-6  ;  10  :  33-11 :  10  (or  as  usually  cited  11 :  1-9),  and  32  :  l-6(  ?). 
These  four  passages  agree  in  describing  a  political  kingdom  with 
a  definite  government  distinct  from  the  rule  of  Jahveh  Himself. 

The  fact  that  the  book  of  Isaiah,  as  it  now  stands,  was  compiled 
some  time  after  the  exile  from  smaller  collections  of  unrelated 
fragments,  many  of  which  first  circulated  independently,  and 
gradually  came  to  be  associated  with  Isaiah,  is  now  too  generally 
accepted  by  biblical  scholars  to  need  discussion  here.  Obviously, 
then,  the  presence  of  a  particular  passage  in  the  compilation 
proves  nothing  concerning  the  identity  of  its  author.  It  is  in 
the  book  simply  because  a  compiler  considered  it  worthy  of 
preservation.  A  large  number  of  passages  are  clearly  post-exilic 
in  form  and  content  (e.  g.  the  oracle  against  Babylon,  ch.  13)  ; 
also  many  of  the  sections  which  as  clearly  belong  to  the  eighth 
century  contain  explanations  and  additions  of  a  much  later 
date.  The  proportion  of  early  and  of  late  material  in  the  several 
independent  collections  differs  considerably.  In  chs.  2-12,  for 
instance,  the  relative  amount  of  Isaianic  material  is  larger  than 
in  any  other  part  of  the  book.  In  chs.  28-32,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  few  passages  which  may  have  been  utterances  of  Isaiah  are 
almost  hidden  by  the  accumulations  of  later  matter.  Neverthe- 
less, for  the  dating  of  any  particular  passage  within  the  various 
collections  we  must  depend  on  internal  evidence  alone. 

Among  the  passages  of  which  the  theme  is  the  future  pros- 
perity of  Israel,  by  far  the  larger  number  are  unhesitatingly 
assigned  by  modern  scholars  to  a  period  during  or  after  the 
exile — in  many  of  them,  indeed,  the  exile  is  presupposed  as  the 
historical  background.  The  most  important  of  such  predictions 
are  chs.  11 :  11-12  :  6 ;   24-27 ;   35.     These  passages  are  distinctly 


SMITH:     THE   MESSIANIC   IDEAL   OF   ISAIAH  159 

eschatological  in  character.  Jahveh  will  shake  the  earth  24 :  18, 
19,  punish  Leviathan  27 : 1,  divide  the  river  11 :  15b,  dry  up  the 
sea  11 :  15a,  cause  streams  to  rise  in  the  wilderness  35 :  6b,  etc. ; 
the  return  of  Israel  from  exile  and  the  establishment  of  the 
world  supremacy  of  Zion  are  to  be  effected  by  the  direct  action 
of  the  miraculous  power  of  Jahveh  11 :  11-12 ;  11 :  15-16 ;  12  : 
1-6;  25:9,10;  26:5,12,13,21;  27:1;  35:4;  all  the  world  will 
then  acknowledge  His  power  24 :  14-15  ;  25  :  3,  7 ;  26  :  16 ;  and 
Jahveh  Himself  will  reign  in  Jerusalem  12 :  6 ;  24 :  23  ;  25  :  6, 
10 ;  26 :  13 — ideas  which  are  all  characteristic  of  Jewish  thought 
in  the  centuries  after  the  exile.  Of  a  similar  type  are  a  number 
of  shorter  passages  (2:2-4;  4:2-6;  17:12-14;  28:5,  6;  29: 
17-24;  30:18-30;  32:15-20;  33:13-24)  which  probably  belong 
to  the  same  period. 

In  direct  contrast  to  such  passages  are  the  four  already  men- 
tioned, in  which  the  restored  glory  of  Jerusalem  is  pictured  as 
directly  the  work  of  the  human  ruler  of  the  nation,  although 
the  ruler  is  of  course  the  sign  of  Jahveh 's  favor  to  His  chosen 
people.  16 : 1-5  is  not  to  be  included  with  them  since,  although 
V.  5  promises  one  sitting  on  a  throne  *'in  the  tent  of  David,"  the 
character  of  the  section  is  quite  different.  The  reference  to  the 
ruler  is  here  merely  incidental  in  a  prophecy  which  is  chiefly 
concerned  with  the  fate  of  Moab;  while  in  the  other  passages 
the  ruler  is  the  chief  figure.  16 : 1-5  is  an  insertion  in  the  oracle 
against  Moab  15 : 1-16 :  12,  which  16 :  13-14  expressly  states  to 
be  a  quotation.  The  whole  passage  is  probably  late — should  per- 
haps be  dated  in  the  same  period  as  the  book  of  Euth^ — and 
verse  5  is  best  understood  as  an  allusion  to  an  idea  which  had 
long  been  a  part  of  Jewish  expectation.  4 :  2  ff. ;  7 :  10-25,  and 
8 : 5-8  are  also  omitted  since  modern  exegesis  and  textual  criti- 
cism have  proved  conclusively  that  they  were  not  intended  to 
have  a  Messianic  significance.  In  4 :  2  the  phrase  * '  branch  of 
Jahveh"  is  obviously  parallel  to  "fruit  of  the  land,"  so  that 
a  personal  interpretation  is  extremely  improbable.^  7 :  10  ff.  is 
evidently,  from  the  context,  a  definite  prediction  of  time  f  while 
8  :  8  should  be  read  '?N  ^^Di^  O  T^N ,  ending  with  the  same  refrain 

^G.  B.  Gray,  "Isaiah"  (Int.  Crit.  Com.),  1911,  pp.  275-277. 
^  Duhm,  Jesaia,  p.  29,  Gottingen,  1914. 
^  For  discussion  see  below,  p.  197  f. 


388354 


160  JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

as   8 :  10*   and   thus   containing  no  reference   to   an   expected 
Messiah. 


TEXT  AND  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  SPECIFICALLY 
MESSIANIC  PASSAGES 

To  determine  whether  these  four  Messianic  predictions 
( 1 :  24-27 ;  9:1-6;  10 :  33-11 :  10 ;  32 : 1-6  (?) )  orginated  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  or  whether  they  form  an  integral 
part  of  the  message  which  Isaiah  brought  to  his  people,  a  study 
of  the  passages  themselves  is  the  first  essential. 

1 :  24-27  is  a  part  of  a  twelve  line  poem,  beginning  with  verse 
21,  which  is  universally  ascribed  to  Isaiah.  The  date  is  uncer- 
tain. Duhm  refers  it  to  the  Syro-Ephraimitic  war,  while 
Cheyne  and  Marti  date  it  about  705  b.  c.  The  poem,  which  is 
in  the  Kinah  or  3 :  2  metre,  is  usually  considered  to  end  at  verse 
26,  although  this  leaves  the  second  strophe  half  a  line  short.  I 
am  inclined  to  include  verse  27  which  is  also  a  3 :  2  line  and  omit 
the  rather  colorless  beginning  of  verse  25  which  in  the  present 
text  scans  3:3:2.  Verses  28  ff.  are  a  late  prose  addition 
describing  the  fate  of  the  wicked,  a  subject  with  which  verse 
27  has  no  connection.  Also  it  seems  somewhat  unnatural  that 
the  supplementer  of  the  poem  should  have  begun  his  addition  in 
the  metre  of  the  poem  and  continued  it  in  prose.  There  is  no 
linguistic  argument  against  verse  27;  the  parallelism  with 
np"lV  requires  O^ti^D  to  mean  "just  judgement"  as  often  in 
Isaiah  and  not  "judgement  day."^  Although  the  word  n"l£3 
is  not  found  elsewhere  in  Isaiah,  it  occurs  twice  in  Hosea,^  thus 
showing  that  it  was  in  use  in  Isaiah's  time.'^  Verse  27,  then, 
would  be  an  allusion  to  Hezekiah's  contemplated  offer  of  tribute 
to  Sennacherib  (II  Kings  18 :  13-16),  which  according  to  Isaiah  ^s 
view  would  be  useless  without  the  intervention  of  Jahveh — an 
intervention  conditioned  on  the  reformation  of  the  nation. 
Marti^  suggests  that  v.  23  refers  to  the  alliance  with  Egypt 
of  which  Isaiah  strongly  disapproved.      The  poem  would  thus 

^Duhm,  iUd.,  p.  56  (ed.  1902);    Marti,  Jesaja,  p.  85,  Tubingen,  1900. 

5  G.  B.  Gray,  Isaiah,  p.  36. 

«Hos.  7:  13;    13:  14. 

'  Cheyne,  Introduction  to  Isaiah,  p.  7.  ^ 

^  Marti,  Jesaja,  p.  20. 


SMITH:     THE   MESSIANIC   IDEAL   OF   ISAIAH  161 

date  at  some  time  during  the  blockade  of  Jerusalem  by  Senna- 
cherib, before  the  retirement  of  the  Assyrian  army. 

1 :  21-27. 

21.  A  harlot  she  has  become, 

the  city  of  trust. 
With  justice  was  Zion  once  filled, 

within  her  dwelt  right. 

22.  Thy  silver  is  but  dross, 

thy  drink  impure. 

23.  Unruly  are  those  ruling  thee, 

companions  of  thieves. 
Everyone  of  them  loves  a  bribe, 

and  seeks  a  reward. 
No  widow's  cause  they  decide, 

no  orphan  they  judge. 

24.  Hence  speaks  Jahveh  of  Hosts, 

Israel's  might: 
On  mine  enemy  I  take  revenge, 

and  vengeance  on  my  foe. 

25.  In  fire  will  I  cleanse  thy  dross, 

purge  all  thine  alloy, 

26.  Restore  thy  judges  as  at  first, 

thy  counsellors  as  of  old. 
Then  righteous  shalt  thou  be  called, 
the  city  of  trust. 

27.  By  justice  shall  Zion  be  redeemed, 

her  inhabitants  by  right. 

n:ir'?  nWn  nyi<  21  a 
njDN:!  nnp 

D^i^D^  iTH  'ifiDD  22 
Dnno  vn  "intr  23  ^ 


102  JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

D*iD'?tr  tinn 

nit:^NiaD  ^^bfitr  rra^b^Ni  26  a 

ni^N:i  nhp 
nS^n  toWoD  n^^  27 
npnvn  notrn 

21b.  fW  added  from  the  Greek.  The  verse  is  too  long  by 
two  accents.  The  final  D^H^ID  HHi^)  is  an  awkward  change 
to  the  concrete  and  may  easily  be  a  gloss,  perhaps  suggested  by 
verse  15.  (Cf.  Duhm,  p.  11;  followed  by  Marti,  p.  17;  Gray, 
p.  33.) 

22.  D^DD  apparently  added  to  explain  ^)nf2  which  is  more 
probably  to  be  taken  as  olive  juice,  cf.  Ar.  maJil  (cf.  Gray, 
p.  36).     Ken.  3  Mss.  read  D^M  . 

23a.  Vn  added  by  Budde  (ZAW.,  1891,  p.  246)  ;  it  improves 
the  metre  and  also  keeps  the  first  half  the  line  parallel  in  form 
to  21a  and  22.  nDH]  M  =  nam,  omit  1  with  (m  and  Ken. 
4  Mss. 

23b.     tp'l  M  =  r^ini ,   omit  1  with  O^B®  and  Ken.  1  Ms. 

23c.  IJO'-N'?]  ill= Dn*':'J<  i<^y  i<^.  Read  with  (g,  Kal  Kpimv . . . 
ov  7rpoa€xovT€s.  The  two  parts  of  23c  are  transposed  in  the  present 
text  and  versions,  making  the  metre  2 ;  3  (cf.  Gray,  pp.  lxv,  31). 


SMITH:     THE   MESSIANIC   IDEAL   OF   ISAIAH  163 

25.  The  verse  as  it  stands  scans  3:3:2;  the  first  clause, 
*y^}^  n*  HD^ti^NI  is  a  fairly  common  expression,  cf .  Am.  1 :  8, 
Jer.  6 :  9,  Ez.  38 :  12,  Zech.  13  :  7,  Ps.  81 :  15 ;  it  seems,  therefore, 
probal)le  that  it  arose  by  dittography  from  the  beginning  of  the 
next  verse  or  was  inserted  by  some  copyist.  The  use  of  HD^C^^N 
in  different  senses  in  the  two  verses  is  also  somewhat  awkward. 

*^D3^  ^  "^^3  5  CI^TI#  "IDD  =  «?  KaOapov,  ad  purum,  ledakiu,  and 
Ken.  2  Mss.    ")DD ,  Kittel,  following  Lowth  (cf.  Gray,  p.  35). 

27.  •T^tp^niiJJ  •7;?^'1,  ^B  =  ni2C*,  iT^C*^  is  suggested 
by  Kittel.  The  emendation  is  parallel  to  that  suggested  by 
J.  M.  P.  Smith  for  the  name  of  Isaiah's  son,  2C*^  INtT  (cf.  below 
p.  189)  and  should  be  accepted  with  it. 

The  passage  is  not  strictly  Messianic,  since  the  prediction 
mentions  only  the  counsellors  and  judges;  but  it  seems  to  belong 
to  this  group  since  it  contains  no  hint  of  the  direct  rule  of 
Jahveh  Himself.     It  is  probably  the  earliest  of  the  four. 

9 : 1-6.     (4  strophes  of  4  couplets,  metre  3 :  3  and  2:2.) 

1.  A  people  who  walk  in  the  dark, 

have  seen  abundant  light. 
The  dwellers  in  a  land  of  gloom, — 

upon  them  a  light  has  shone. 

2.  He  causes  great  joy, 

increases  delight. 
Unto  Thee  as  in  harvest  they  rejoice, 
or  as  men  dividing  spoil. 

3.  Because  the  burdening  yoke, 

and  the  shoulder-striking  staff. 
The  oppressor"'s  mighty  rod, 

Thou  didst  break  as  in  Midlands  day. 

4.  And  the  boot  of  each  evil  man, 

and  the  garment  rolled  in  blood, 
Is  become  a  flame 

and  food  of  fire. 

5.  For  a  child  is  born, 

a  son  to  us  giv'n, 
On  his  shoulder  is  the  rule, 

and  they  call  his  name 


164  JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

Wise  in  Design, 

Mighty  as  God, 
Father  of  Spoil,  * 

Prince  of  Peace. 

6.     Great  is  his  rule, 

and  endless  his  pfeace. 
For  David's  kingdom  and  throne 

he  shall  found  and  make  firm. 
In  justice  and  right, 

both  now  and  alway. 
The  zeal  of  Jahveh 

shall  bring  it  to  pass. 


pD  DVD  nhnn 

^'^ 

D^biD  r?'?^^:!/!:  n'?Dtri 

rrDntr'?  riiTn b 

SMITH:     THE    MESSIANIC    IDEAL   OF    ISAIAH  165 

np-iVDi  obc:rM     ^ 

2a.  n'?*Jin]  M,  Ketib,  N:*?  ^I^H,  which  is  nonsense;  Kere  and 
Ken.  14  Mss.  B^  read  l'? ;  (SC  omit  N'?  •  n'?On  which  restores 
the  proper  parallelism,  was  suggested  by  Krochmal  and  inde- 
pendently by  Selwyn  (cf.  Gray,  p.  175). 

2b  could  be  scanned  as  4 : 4,  in  which  case  the  poem  would 
have  lines  of  three  different  lengths.  To  divide  as  two  couplets 
of  2 :  2  is  contrary  to  the  parallelism  and  makes  the  first  strophe 
consist  of  five  lines.  Duhm  (ed.  1902)  omits  *]0£3'?  as  referring 
to  the  joy  of  worship,  and  therefore  out  of  place  in  a  descrip- 
tion of  harvest  and  victory.  His  suggestion  is  accepted  by 
Marti.  This  omission  suits  the  sense,  but  leaves  an  awkward 
succession  of  three  forms  of  HOC* .  Duhm  (ed.  1914)  keeps 
the  text  of  iiH.  If  we  suppose  that  rUlOtTD  was  inserted  to 
make  the  construction  clearer,  and  omit  l'?*JI*  wdth  (gH,  we  might 
read 

b"?^  Dp'^na  ntb^D  ^  n^'vpD  y^^"?  ih^DC^ 


166  JOURNAL    OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

4a.  M  adds  f ND  >  probably  a  dittograph  from  pND  •  i^C^")] 
m  lias  trj;")5.  OilCQI  read  ;^tr"l  (cf.  11:4).  The  2  was  prob- 
ably a  later  insertion  in  order  to  make  a  grammatical  construc- 
tion after  fND  •     n'?'?1Ji:: .  cf .  II  Sam.  20 :  12.     There  is  no  need 

to  emend  with  Gray  to  il'^NJlD ,  so  (^i£. 

4b.    nn\1]  M  prefixes  1 ,  omit  for  the  sake  of  parallelism  with 

nnnn  3b. 

5c.  m  N'^p.^^  point  ^^n|>)n  with'  (j^l^X^®.  (So  Duhm,  p. 
66,  Marti,  p.  93.)  c  and  d  could  be  combined,  giving  one  accent 
to  the  compound  names  instead  of  two,  but  Gray  is  probably 
right  in  assuming  that  for  the  sake  of  emphasis  each  word  is 
to  be  given  its  accent.  Duhm's  division  (ed.  1902)  destroys  the 
parallelism,  since  by  it  Di7t^  ")t^  must  balance  both  'T\2}  '^N 
and  1};  ON* .  In  the  edition  of  1914,  Duhm  balances  niD:i  '^K 
with  "TJ7  OK  and  assumes  that  the  epithet  which  originally 
balanced  Q)^^  ^2^  has  been  lost. 

6a.  nan]  m  rt2ld7 .  The  use  of  the  final  form  of  D  points 
to  textual  corruption.  Gray  and  Marti  read  HD*).  The  ti? 
probably  arose  by  dittography  from  the  preceding  Di))^^  - 

The  evidence  of  the  language  for  dating  this  passage  is  inde- 
cisive, since  the  words  which  might  give  an  indication  of  the 
period  of  the  writing  occur  either  here  only  or  perhaps  once 
elsewhere,  e.  g.,  pND-  JKD-  nntTO-  D'^DND-  HIO'^V  occurs  first 
in  Jer.  2:6;  13 :  16.  HN^p  is  an  idea  frequent  in  Ezekiel  and 
later  writers,  ''but  it  may  also  be  so  interpreted  as  not  to  be 
absolutely  incompatible  with  Isaiah's  thought."^  Vv.  3  and  4 
are  expressed  in  terms  too  general  to  determine  the  date.  How- 
ever, they  contain  no  allusion  to  the  deportation  of  any  section 
of  the  people,  and  would  therefore  apply  well  to  the  tribute 
imposed  by  Assyria  during  the  reign  of  Hezekiah.  Further  if 
PND  is  a  loan  word  from  the  Assyrian^^  a  reference  to  the 
Assyrian  would  naturally  be  inferred^^;  ''garments  weltering 
in  blood"  is  hardly  too  strong  an  expression  to  be  applied  to 
an  army  which  had  recently  destroyed  the  Philistine  cities  and 
the  towns  of  Judah.      The  verses  are  then  to  be  taken,  not  as 

®  Gray,  Isaiah,  p.  167. 
^°  Brown-Driver -Briggs,  Lexicon,  p.  684. 
"  Kennett,  The  Composition  of  the  BooTc  of  Isaiah. 


SMITH:     THE   MESSIANIC   IDEAL   OF   ISAIAH  167 

a  general  prediction  of  the  end  of  war  (parallel  to  2:4),  but 
as  a  prediction  of  the  destruction  of  a  particular  enemy. 

The  names  of  the  child  in  v.  5  are  difficult  to  interpret,  and 
the  versions  offer  little  help. 

Ti^V  K'?^  may  be  "a  wonder  of  a  counsellor"  parallel  to 
DnN  '?^D:3  Prov.  15:2  {GK.,  128,  I)  or  N'^S  may  be  the  pre- 
fixed accusative  parallel  to  Is.  22 : 2,  '  *  giving  wonderful 
counsel. '  '^- 

"IIDJI  ^^  does  not  necessarily  imply  divinity,  cf.  the  use  of 
the  plural,  Ez.  32:  21  =  ''mighty  heroes"  and  further  the  use 
of  "iVt  in  Ez.  31 :  11,  and  of  the  plural  Job  41 :  17,  Ez.  17 :  13, 
II  Kings  24: 15,  Ex.  15 :  15,  where  the  MS.  readings  ^iV,  til''^ 
etc.  are  probably  due  to  an  effort  to  distinguish  the  word  from 
the  divine  name.^^ 

1J^  *DN-  1i^  may  be  tak^  either  as  "booty"  or  as  ''eter- 
nity." In  the  sense  of  "booty"  it  occurs  Gen.  49:27,  Is. 
33:23.  In  the  sense  "eternity"  it  is  late.  "Booty"  fits  the 
passage  here  as  the  other  meaning  does  not,  since  it  gives  us 
two  pairs  of  epithets,  each  containing  one  name  for  a  time  of 
peace  and  one  for  a  time  of  war.  The  chief  argument  offered 
against  this  interpretation  applies  also  against  the  other.  It  is 
said  that  *DN  in  such  names  as  Abimelek,  Abidan,  etc.,  always 
forms  part  of  a  sentence,  e.  g.  "my  father  (is)  king,"  "my 
father  (is)  judge."  This  is  apparently  true.  However,  the 
sentence  frequently  can  not  be  taken  literally,  cf.  11 H  *D5< 
"my  father  (is)  majesty,"  b\2  ^DiV  "my  father  (is)  dew." 
On  the  analogy  of  these  names  it  is  quite  as  natural  to  say 
"my  father  is  booty"  as  "my  father  is  eternity";  and  there 
appears  to  be  little  probability  for  the  meaning  "a  father 
forever"  parallel  to  -T;rn")a:i  Is.  47:7,  or  D'?*);^  ID);,  Dt. 
15 :  17.^*  UilZ*  *)t^*,  the  last  name,  is  obvious  enough. 

The  passage,  10 :  33-11 :  10,  is  the  most  elaborate  and  definite 
of  the  Messianic  prophecies  in  the  book  of  Isaiah.  The  argu- 
ments for  regarding  it  as  a  single  poem  are  as  follows : 

10 :  33-34  is  not  to  be  connected  with  what  precedes,  for 
10 :  28-32,  a  vivid  description  of  the  advance  of  an  hostile  army, 

"Gray,  p.  176;    Marti,  p.  93. 
"  BDB.,  p.  42. 
"  Gray,  p.  174. 

12 


168  JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

is  complete  in  itself,  and  is  quite  different  in  metre  and  style 
from  10 :  33f .  10 :  33,  34  and  11 : 1  are  equally  figurative,  and 
the  contrast  between  them,  although  perhaps  not  "unmistak- 
able,"^^ is  nevertheless  too  direct  to  be  accidental.  The  vocab- 
ulary of  10 :  33,  34  is  not  post-exilic.  Cheyne^^  found  so  many 
Isaianic  expressions  that  he  suggested  quite  seriously  that  the 
passage  was  an  intentional  piece  of  patchwork,  composed  by 
the  redactor;  e.  g.  w|J^D  denominative  from  ^^i^D  17 :  6,  ny^lJ^O- 
cf .  2 :  19,  21,  f]p^  cf .  r]p^  17 :  16,  nj;\n  ^DDD  cf .  9  :  17.  The 
two  verses  as  a  whole  are  parallel  to  2 :  12-17.  The  only  late 
usage  is  inND,  and  this,  as  Cheyne  himself  admits  in  his  edi- 
tion of  Isaiah^^  should  be  emended  (cf.  below).  Further  H^tl 
pINH  makes  a  good  opening  for  a  poem,  while  NV^I  appears 
so  unnatural  that  commentators  have  often  suggested  that  an 
opening  distich  has  been  lost. 

11 :  10  has  usually  been  connected  with  the  following  clearly 
post-exilic  section,  11 :  11  ff.,  because  of  its  opening  words 
Ninn  DVD  n^m  which  are  identical  with  the  beginning  of 
V.  11.  But  it  is  quite  possible,  either  that  the  beginning  of 
V.  11  was  prefixed  by  the  compiler  to  make  a  superficial  connec- 
tion between  the  two  sections,  or  that  the  words,  if  they  were 
originally  a  part  of  the  verse,  were  the  cause  of  the  position 
of  the  later  section.  For  the  pre-exilic  use  of  the  phrase  in 
predictions,  compare  Am.  8:3,  9,  Hos.  1:5,  2 :  16.  It  is  of 
frequent  occurrence  in  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  e.  g.  2 :  11,  17, 
20;    3:7,  18;    4:1;    etc. 

The  chief  reason,  however,  for  including  10 :  33,  34  and  11 :  10 
in  the  poem  is  that  10 :  33-11 :  10  taken  together  forms  a  homo- 
geneous and  symmetrical  whole.  If  the  poem  is  considered  as 
consisting  of  11 : 1-8  only,  it  is  impossible  to  divide  into  strophes 
of  equal  length  without  making  divisions  contrary  to  the  sense^^ ; 
the  poem  is  without  proper  introduction ;  and  its  conclusion  has 
little  relation  to  its  beginning.  The  addition  of  10 :  33,  34  and 
11 :  10  brings  the  whole  passage  into  regular  metrical  form,  the 
couplets  being  3 : 3,  arranged  in  strophes  of  three  couplets  each, 
with  the  strophic  and  sense  divisions  corresponding,  while  the 

"  Dillmann,  Der  Prophet  Jescda,  p.  116  (Leipzig,  1890) ;    Gray,  p.  213. 
"  Cheyne,  Introduction,  p.  56. 
"Cheyne,    '' Isaiah,"   SBOT. 
^*  Gray,  Isaiah,  p.  212. 


smith:     the   messianic   ideal   of   ISAIAH  169 

similarity  between  11 :  10  and  11 : 1  links  closely  the  different 
parts  of  the  poem. 

The  divisions,  then,  are  as  follows: — 

10 :  33a.  The  introductory  line  does  not  form  a  part  of  the 
metrical  scheme.^^     Behold,  Jahveli  is  destrojdng  the  forest. 

10 :  33b-ll :  1.  After  the  destruction,  the  branch  of  Jesse  will 
bear  fruit. 

11 : 2-3.  The  spirit  of  Jahveh  is  upon  him,  so  that  he  is  not 
dependent  upon  human  faculties. 

11 :  4-5.     Therefore  he  judges  justly. 

11 :  6-7a.     Then  even  the  beasts  shall  be  at  peace. 

11 :  7b-9a.     Nothing  shall  do  harm. 

ll:9b-10.  For  the  earth  will  be  full  of  the  knowledge  of 
Jahveh  and  all  nations  will  hon6r  the  root  of  Jesse. 

10:33-11:10. 

10 :  33.    Behold  the  Lord  of  Hosts, 

destroying  the  tree-tops  with  might ! 

Laid  low  are  the  tallest  limbs, 

the  loftiest  trees  shall  fall, 
34.     The  thickets  with  iron  He  destroys, 

and  Lebanon  falls  by  the  ax; 
11 : 1.      But  shall  spring  from  Jesse's  trunk 
a  branch  from  out  his  root. 

11 :  2.       On  him  the  spirit  of  Jahveh, 

a  spirit  of  wisdom  and  thought, 
A  spirit  of  counsel  and  might, 

a  spirit  revering  Jahveh. 

11 :  3.       And  not  by  sight  shall  he  judge, 

nor  by  what  his  ears  may  hear. 

11 :  4.      Rightly  shall  he  judge  the  poor, 

treat  justly  the  meek  of  the  earth. 
With  a  word  the  oppressor  smite, 

at  his  breath  shall  the  sinner  die. 

11 :  5.      The  girdle  of  his  loins  shall  be  right, 

and  with  truth  shall  he  bind  himself. 

"Harper,  Amos  and  Eosea,  pp.  168  f.  (Int.  Crit.  Com.). 


170  JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

11 :  6.       Then  shall  sojourn  wolf  with  lamb, 
a  leopard  rest  by  a  kid, 
A  lion  feed  near  a  calf, 

their  leader  a  little  child. 

11 :  7a.     A  cow  shall  feed  with  a  bear, 

together  their  young  lie  down. 

11 :  7b.     The  lion  shall  eat  grass  like  the  ox, 

and  dust  be  the  serpent's  food. 

11 :  8.      The  babe  by  the  asp 's  hole  shall  play, 
the  child  by  the  adder's  home. 

11 :  9a.     There  shall  be  nor  evil  nor  harm, 
in  all  my  holy  mount. 

11 :  9b.    For  knowledge  of  God  shall  fill  earth 
as  the  water  covers  the  sea. 

11 :  10.     And  then  shall  Jesse's  root 

a  signal  be  to  the  world. 
To  him  shall  the  nations  flock, 

and  glorious  be  his  rest. 

ni'kSav-ni.T  ]hi^n  rl^n  10:33  a 

D^i^-TJi  nbipn  ^bni  10:33  ^ 
'?naa  nr^*TODD  fipjn  10:34 
»t^^  ;rno  nm-Nvn  11:1 

nW  nn  v'?;;-rrmi  11:2 
nwni^T  ....nn 


SMITH:     THE   MESSIANIC   IDEAL   OF   ISAIAH  171 

D1£3tr^  vi^r  nNnD'7-N'?1 . .  •  •    11:3 
D^"?-]  piVD  D£)£ri    11:4 

vint:  niin  pii'-iTm  11:5 

trab-or  nkr  nil  11:6 
pT  nroj;  -)b:)i 

nri^nnn  nil  nntDi  11:7  ^ 

ph-^DN^  npM  n'nNi  11:7  ^ 
fnb-nn-^r  piv  y^ym  11:8 


wns:*^  n"?!  iitt-n'?  11:9  a 


nin^-nj;!  pxn  hn'pd-o  11:9  b 
^b^»-trn:r  Nnnn-DVD  iTm  11:10 


iiiD  innjo  ^h^n1 


172  JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

10 :  33.  n'^^^fi  40  Mss.  a'a'O'  H  read  HniiD  •  BDB,  root  ^^£3 
II,  doubtful,  compare  Dl^lKD  ''boughs"  Ez.  17:6,  31:5  and 
*)^C5n,  Dt  24:  20.  (&  =  eV8o|ovs,  compare  ni^O  ''head-dress,"  Is. 
3  :  20 ;  61 :  10 ;  Ez.  24 :  17 ;  44 :  18 ;  Ex.  39  :  28.  Therefore  pos- 
sibly used  of  the  tops  of  the  trees. 

10 :  34.  pnrai  HI  inH:i  >  (g  o-^  roi?  ^^r^Xois,  hence  Marti 
and  Cheyne  suggest  in^IND'  cf.  Zech.  11:2.  But  some  term 
parallel  to  ^/H^D  is  needed;  Kittel  suggests  D"l"lpD  "with 
an  ax."  ynm,  cf.  II  Sam.  12:31,  and  p^H,  Am.  1:3 
requires  less  change  of  the  Hebrew. 

11:1.     n>y]  M  nn£)V     (^WB^IE  read  m£3^ 

11:2.  n^y  mm  il  n^TI  n;rn  mn,  a  peculiar  con- 
struction, since  DVI  is  probably  construct,  with  no  noun  imme- 
diately following,  cf .  GK,  128^  and  note  1. 

11:3.  Before  i<b)  M  reads  Hl.T  nKIO  innm ,  which 
obviously  arose  by  dittography  from  the  preceding,  with  the 
omission  of  H^^n  .     16  Mss.  with  (glGH©  read  i<^ . 

11 :  4.  Ken.  80  omits  ^*)^^  ,  possibly,  therefore  read  DV^i^'?  • 
pli^ ,  so  Kittel,  Duhm,  Marti ;  M  j^^K .  The  change  is  neces- 
sary for  the  parallel  with  i^t^*),  cf.  also  0^  N  Q^^  which  has  for 
|^"1N  ^)^yb  J  Tov<s  ivS6$ov<s  Trj<:  yrjs  (so  Irenaeus)  while  21  reads 
"et  redarguet  superbos  et  eripiet  humiles,"  ,  thus  apparently 
retaining  the  idea  of  THi^ . 

11:5.     nijin]    M   nitK,    cf.  Gray,  p.  221.     (g   Ko>cTfx^vos 

€iXr}fjL€vo<i,  the  latter  only  here  in  this  sense,  making  it  probable 
that  the  Hebrew  used  different  words. 

11:6.     ^i;y^  m  ^nOI,  C^IC  transpose  KHD  and  TM ,  and 

mm»  add  i;;n» . 

11 :  7a.     tiyj;^nn ,  so  Duhm  and  Kittel.     M  tlT^'^n ,  (^  a/xa 

(3o(TKr)0rj(rovTaL',  |G^  =  (^. 

11 :  7b.  The  last  half  of  the  line  is  supplied  from  Is.  65  :  25 
(cf.  Gray,  p.  211). 

11 :  8.  The  second  half  of  the  line  in  M  reads  nilNO  b}^) 
tl^il  ^1^  ^^D^  ^^li^^V  yet  in  sense  this  is  obviously  the  correct 
parallel  to  the  first  half  of  the  verse.  n*)1ND  is  taken  by  the 
versions  as  equalling  "IH-  (gU  read  b)f2^  with  ^Jli^fiV,  i.  e. 
cKyoVwv  doTTrtSwv.  Gray  points  out  that  mil  is  the  only  perfect 
without  waw  conversive  in  the  section,  and  that  its  proper 
Aramaic  meaning  is    "lead"   which  makes  nonsense  here.     He 


SMITH:     THE   MESSIANIC   IDEAL   OF   ISAIAH  173 

suggests  that  nnH  ^1^  is  a  corruption  from  some  verb  in  the 
imperfect,  parallel  to  i^tJ^J/tJ^I .  Any  reconstruction  is,  of 
course,  mere  guesswork,  but  there  seems  no  doubt  that  v.  8  was 
originally  a  3  :  3  couplet. 

11:9b.  m.T  nyi]  m  n)n'  nx  n:i;-T,  cf.  gk,  luc  and 

118cZ. 

Cheyne-^  finds  in  this  passage  no  linguistic  peculiarities  which 
demand  a  date  later  than  Isaiah;  and  many  of  the  phrases 
can  be  paralleled  from  his  prophecies  (cf.  above  on  10:  33,  34). 
The  only  definite  argument  for  a  late  date  for  the  passage  is 
drawn  from  the  use  of  the  phrase  ^t^^  ^U  in  11 : 1.  The  root 
meaning  of  i^H  is  ''cut"  (cf.  Arabic  and  Ethiopic).^^  Gray 
interprets  the  word  here  as  the  stump  of  a  tree  which  has  been 
cut  down  and  argues  that  it  implies  a  time  when  a  Davidic 
king  was  no  longer  reigning  in  Jerusalem.  He  cites  in  support 
of  this  usage  Job  14 : 8.^^  Prof.  Barton  has  pointed  out  that 
it  may  also  mean  the  trunk  of  a  tree  from  which  the  larger 
branches  have  been  cut  for  fire-wood.^^  It  is  used  in  somewhat 
this  sense  in  Is.  40:24,  and  this  meaning  is  parallel  to  the 
similar  nouns  in  Arabic  and  Syriac.^*  If  then  i^H  may  be 
interpreted  of  a  living  tree,  it  does  not  necessitate  a  post-exilic 
date  for  the  passage.^^ 

The  fourth  passage,  32 : 1-8,  is  less  important.  Vv.  6-8  are 
obviously  not  Isaianic.  The  similarity  to  the  later  wisdom  liter- 
ature is  too  striking.^®  Vv,  1-5  are  doubtful.  Marti  joins  with 
them  vv.  15-20.  If  this  is  correct,  the  poem  must  be  late,  prob- 
ably post-exilic.  The  picture  of  universal  peace  with  the 
emphasis  on  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  belongs  clearly  in  thought 
with  such  passages  as  2 :  2-4.  32 : 1-2  refers,  however,  to  political 
conditions  and  if  the  section  1-5  is  taken  alone,  it  is  possibly  the 
work  of  Isaiah. 

The  metre  is  rough  and  the  many  variations  which  the  Septu- 
agint  presents  give  evidence  of  early  corruption  of  the  text.     It 

-'^  Cheyne,  Introduction,  pp.  64  f . 

-^  Gesenius,  Handled rterhuch,  loth  ed. 

^-  Gray,  Isaiah,  pp.  214  f. 

^  Such  as  described  by  G.  A.  Barton,  A  Tear's  Wandering  in  Bible  Lands, 
p.  156. 

•*  Gesenius,  Handworterhuch. 

"  G.  A.  Barton,  in  JBL.,  XXIII,  p.  73. 

-''Duhrn,  Jesaja,  p.  208-09;    Box,  Isaiah,  p.  145;    Marti,  Jesaja,  p.  237. 


174  JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

seems  therefore  probable  that  some  transcriber  of  Isaiah's  work, 
perhaps  he  who  is  responsible  for  vv.  6-8,  altered  the  fragment 
of  original  prophecy  to  suit  his  own  conceptions.  Cheyne  counts 
thirteen  words  in  w.  1-5  which  are  apparently  not  used  else- 
where in  the  genuine  prophecies  of  Isaiah.  Several  of  these 
occur  only  here,  and  others  like  fH  occur  in  doubtful  passages, 
but  the  extremely  large  number  of  unusual  words  is  certainly 
suspicious. 

Any  attempt  to  recover  a  possible  Isaianic  kernel  for  the 
verses  must  be  purely  conjectural;  the  text  of  the  Septuagint 
seems  to  have  suffered  more  than  the  Hebrew  from  later  emenda- 
tions. The  metre  is  apparently  3 : 3,  and  the  verses  form  two 
strophes  of  three  couplets  each,  which  is  the  poetical  form  of 
10:33-11:10. 

1.  Lo,  rightly  a  king  shall  rule, 

and  princes  in  justice  decree. 

2.  A  man  shall  be  refuge  from  wind, 

a  protection  from  the  mighty  storm. 
Like  springs  of  water  in  thirst, 

in  a  desert  like  the  shade  of  a  rock. 

3.  Nor  shall  the  eyes  of  the  seeing  be  blind, 

nor  the  ears  of  the  hearing  be  deaf. 

4.  The  hasty  heart  shall  understand, 

the  stammering  tongue  shall  speak. 

5.  No  more  .shall  fools  be  called  noble, 

nor  the  crafty  be  told    .    .    . 

-]'7?b"^':^D^  pnb  ]h  i 
.155  onrp  nnm 


smith:     the   messianic   ideal   of   ISAIAH  175 

....  nii» ....  D'h:;  j w'^i 

1.     Ontri]  M  Dntr'71 ,    omit  b   with    (m&Q;    and  Ken.  93. 

2a.  n)1t2'  D")Tp]  iK  Hl'n.  D")^.  The  preposition  was  either 
read  or  supplied  by  the  versions.  "1D^  in  M  follows  y^D , 
making  the  last  half  of  2a  short  and  2b  long.  Box  therefore 
suggests  the  change.  0^  has  an  entirely  different  reading  for 
most  of  the  verse. 

3.   nyvt:^*n]  m  nrji^cr'n.  read  ny};c*r\  with  a  hqi^. 

4.  Omit  ilj^"l'?  (05  read  i^Dt^*'?)  probably  an  explanatory 
gloss ;  also  "IJlOn  which  was  probably  inserted  by  mistake  from 
the  first  half  the  verse,  and  perhaps  also  JlinV  as  an  explanatory 
gloss  for  "1D"1^  •  M  reads  "^Dl*? ,  a  change  made  necessary  by 
the  insertion  of  "lHOri. 

5.  After  N^p* ,  M  has  "ll^T ,  which  should  perhaps  be 
retained.     J^W  in  Job  34: 19  ''noble,"  (g  has  here  2tya. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  INTERPRETATION 

The  criticism  and  interpretation  of  these  passages,  together 
with  7 :  14  ff .,  presented  no  problem  to  the  early  Christian  com- 
mentators to  whom  everything  in  the  Old  Testament  was  unques- 
tionably a  prophecy  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  so  that  even  Rahab's 
scarlet  thread  was  considered  a  symbol  of  the  atoning  blood  of 
the  Christ. 

Thus  we  find  Jerome  saying  in  his  commentary  on  Isaiah^^ 
that  the  righteous  judges,  1 :  26,  are  the  twelve  apostles ;  that 
9 : 4  predicts  the  breaking  of  the  yoke  of  Satan  by  the  Saviour ; 
that  11 :  6  ff .  is  to  be  interpreted  as  a  fable  since  a  literal  inter- 
pretation would  be  unworthy  of  God,  for  ''why  should  the  deity 
be  interested  in  animals?"  The  wolf,  therefore,  signifies  Paul 
who  at  first  persecuted  the  church.  7 :  14  is  obviously  a  direct 
prediction  of  Christ's  birth,  and  as  to  the  relation  of  this  event 
to  the   destruction   of   Samaria   and  Damascus,   Jerome  says: 

^S.  Hienonymi  Opera,  vol.  Ill  (edition  1704). 


176  JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

' '  Quod  ad  mysterium  et  invocationem  nominis  ejus,  terra  Syriae 
et  Samariae,  Assyrio  superante,  vastetur  et  domus  David 
liberetur  a  duobus  regibus  quos  metuit,  Easin,  videlicet  et 
Phacee." 

The  authority  of  Jerome  established  this  method  of  interpre- 
tation permanently  in  the  Roman  church.  Almost  the  only 
opposing  views  during  the  Middle  Ages  were  those  held  by  the 
Rabbinical  commentators,  the  most  important  of  whom  flour- 
ished from  the  twelfth  to  the  fifteenth  centuries.  R.  Solomon 
Yishaki,^^  called  Rashi,  who  died  1105,  followed  the  Aramaic 
paraphrase  closely,  and  gave  usually  the  traditional  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Talmudists.  On  7 :  14,  however^  the  chronological 
arguments  of  the  Christian  polemists  forced  him  to  abandon 
the  identification  of  Immanuel  with  Hezekiah.  He  suggested 
instead  that  HD'^j/n  is  the  prophetess,  the  wife  of  Isaiah,  and 
Immanuel  his  expected  son.  9 :  5  he  applied  to  Hezekiah  at  the 
age  of  twelve,  dividing  the  epithets  between  God  and  the  child. 
Ibn  Ezra^^  agreed  with  Rashi  in  his  interpretation  of  7 :  14 ; 
9 ;  5,  although  he  gave  all  the  epithets  in  the  latter  passage  to 
the  child.  11 : 1.  ff.  he  also  referred  to  Hezekiah.  Kimhi^*^  in 
the  next  century,  was  interested  chiefly  in  polemics  against  the 
Christians.  He  interpreted  7 :  14  of  an  otherwise  unknown  w^if e 
and  son  of  Ahaz.  9 :  5  he  took  as  a  tribute  to  Hezekiah,  but 
he  considered  11 : 1  ff.  as  a  prediction,  still  unfulfilled,  of  the 
'^ branch  of  David,"   parallel  to  Mi.  5:1,  Zech,  3:8. 

The  few  Christian  scholars  who  endeavored  to  explain  proph- 
ecies historically  were  classed  as  heretics  by  the  church,  and 
their  memory  is  preserved  only  in  occasional  disapproving  refer- 
ences to  ''the  Jews  and  those  who  think  like  them"  in  the  works 
of  the  orthodox  writers.  /" 

Even  the  Reformation  made  little  change  in  traditional 
Biblical  interpretation.  Luther,  indeed,  said  definitely^ ^  that 
the  majority  of  the  prophets  speak  concerning  a  material  king- 
dom, yet  sometimes  make  a  sudden  transition  to  the  kingdom 
of  Christ.  Such  transitions  are  especially  frequent  in  Isaiah, 
yet  many  things  may  refer  to  his  own  people;    and  Luther 

^^  Gesenius,  Der  Prophet  Jesaia,  pp.  119,  307-08,  360. 

-^  Gesenius,  iMd.,  pp.  307-08,  360,  418. 

«"  Gesenius,  iMd.,  pp.  308,  360,  418  ff. 

^^  Luther,  In  Esaicun  Scholia,  Wittenberg,  1534. 


SMITH:     THE   MESSIANIC   IDEAL   OF  ISAIAH  177 

criticised  Jerome  ''who  ridicules  Apollinaris  for  turning  all 
things  to  allegory,  yet  himself  is  accustomed  to  do  the  same." 
But  Luther  is  certainly  not  free  from  the  allegorizing  tendency. 
According  to  him,  11 :  6  refers  to  the  receiving  of  tyrants  and 
oppressors  into  the  church.  He  interpreted  7 :  14  of  Christ  and 
explained  (following  a  suggestion  of  Irenaeus)  that  the  eating 
of  butter  and  honey  signifies  that  He  will  be  brought  up  like 
other  children.  32 : 1  ff.  on  the  other  hand,  he  interpreted  of 
Hezekiah  rather  than  of  the  Christ. 

Calvin 's^2  interpretation  in  general  agreed  with  that  of 
Luther,  although  Calvin  usually  put  somewhat  more  emphasis 
on  the  applicability  of  the  passage  to  earlier  events.  For  exam- 
ple, he  applied  9 : 2  first  to  the  return  of  the  exiles  from  Baby- 
lon, but  also  to  the  coming  of  Christ.  In  7 :  14  ff.  Calvin  felt 
clearly  the  difficulty  of  connecting  the  birth  of  Christ  with  the 
perplexities  of  Ahaz,  but  he  explained,  as  did  the  earlier  com- 
mentators, that  all  the  deliverances  of  the  Jews  were  really  the 
work  of  the  promised  Messiah ;  he  differed  from  them,  however, 
in  referring  v.  16  not  to  Immanuel,  but  to  all  those  who  w^ere 
children  at  the  time  of  the  prophet. 

Such  methods  of  interpretation  were  accepted  almost  unani- 
mously by  scholars  until  nearly  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
J.  D.  Michaelis,^^  for  example,  although  making  many  acute 
suggestions  in  regard  to  the  emendation  of  the  text,  kept  on  the 
whole  to  the  traditional  interpretation.  9 :  6  ff.  could  not  apply 
to  Hezekiah  without  blasphemy  ,•  in  11 :  6  the  beasts  are  a  parable 
for  fierce  races  of  men,  etc. 

A  realization  of  the  possibility  of  holding  diverse  opinions 
concerning  Isaiah's  Messianic  hope  was  one  of  the  results  of  the 
critical  analysis  of  the  book  of  Isaiah — an  analysis  which  was 
itself  the  result  of  the  modern  conception  of  the  nature  and 
function  of  prophecy.  The  beginning  of  this  analysis  was  made 
by  Koppe  in  his  notes  to  the  German  edition  of  Lowth's  com- 
mentary."^* Koppe  said  in  his  introduction  that  the  book  of 
Isaiah  obviously  falls  into  a  number  of  unconnected  sections, 

^^  Calvin,  Isaiah,  1550  (English  translation,  Edinburgh,  1609). 

^  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Entwurf  der  typisclien  Gottesgelehrtheit,  Gottingen, 
1763;  Deutsche  Uebersetzung  des  Alien  Testament,  Gottingen,  1779; 
Orientalische  und  Exegetische  BihliotheJc,  Frankfurt,  1778-]-. 

"Lowth,  Jesaia,  Leipzig,  1779. 


178  JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

and  that  there  is  no  certainty  that  the  superscriptions  are  accu- 
rate, nor  that  the  whole  book  is  the  work  of  Isaiah.  For  instance, 
he  declared  that  chapter  32  is  plainly  a  collection  of  fragments 
from  many  hands.  He  did  not  anywhere,  indeed,  attempt  a 
systematic  analysis,  but  contented  himself  with  an  occasional 
suggestion  of  possibilities.  In  interpreting  the  separate  proph- 
ecies, however,  he  frequently  broke  away  from  the  allegorical 
tradition,  suggesting  that  4 : 2  may  mean  the  literal  fruit  of  the 
land,  and  that  chapters  34,  35  refer  to  the  destruction  of  Edom 
by  Nebuchadrezzar  and  have  no  connection  whatever  with  the 
Messiah. 

Eichhorn^^  argued  definitely  and  decisively  for  the  diversity 
of  authorship  of  the  book  of  Isaiah,  separated  chapters  40-66  from 
the  first  part  of  the  book,  suggested  that  chapters  24-27  were 
inserted  to  fill  an  empty  space  in  the  parchment,  and  asserted 
that  the  book  as  a  whole  is  a  collection  of  oracles,  made  later 
than  the  Babylonian  exile,  with  an  earlier  collection  of  Isaianic 
sayings  as  a  basis.  Eichhorn,  since  his  interest  was  chiefly  in 
the  critical  analysis  of  the  book,  ^  made  no  especial  investigation 
of  Isaiah 's  Messianic  expectation.  He  considered  9 : 1-14  a  late 
gloss,  but  accepted  chapter  11  as  genuine,  and  cited  it  as  an 
especially  characteristic  example  of  Isaiah's  poetic  power. 

Gesenius^^  accepted  Eichhorn 's  principle  of  the  diverse 
authorship  of  the  book  of  Isaiah,  and  he  further  deliberately 
rejected  most  of  the  Messianic  passages.  7 :  14  he  took  as  refer- 
ring to  Isaiah's  wife,  and  asserted  that  the  sign  dealt  with  the 
limit  of  the  time  predicted.  9 : 1  ff .  he  took  as  the  Talmudists 
had  done,  as  a  tribute  to  Hezekiah,  but  chapters  11  and  32  he 
considered  predictions  of  an  ideal  king  expected  in  the  near 
future.  Hitzig^'^  agreed  with  Gesenius  on  7 :  14,  but  was  more- 
consistent  in  his  treatment  of  chapters  9  and  11,  taking  both  as 
predictions  of  the  Messianic  era  which  was  to  follow  immediately 
after  the  destruction  of  Assyria  by  Jahveh.  Ewald^^  went  back 
to  the  Messianic  explanation  of  7 :  14,   although  he  admitted 

^^  Eichhorn,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament. 
^  Gesenius,  Der  Prophet  Jesaia. 
^'  Hitzig,  Der  Prophet  Jesaja,  Heidelberg,  1833. 

^Ewald,  Die  Propheten  des  Alten  Bundes,  1867,  68  (English  Translation, 
London,  1876). 


SMITH:     THE    MESSIANIC    IDEAL    OF   ISAIAH  179 

''it  would  not  have  been  easy  to  discover  the  reference  to  the 
Messiah  from  the  words  alone,  unless  his  coming  had  long  since 
been  foretold  with  sufficient  clearness  by  the  other  prophets.'* 
Chapters  9  and  11  describe  the  divine  kingdom  which  the 
prophet  considered  capable  of  being  combined  with  the  Davidic 
rule. 

Duhm^^  denied  any  Messianic  significance  to  chapter  7.  In 
his  interpretation  of  chapters  9  and  11  he  laid  stress  especially 
on  the  eschatological  character  of  the  Messianic  age  as  expected 
by  Isaiah.  The  destruction  of  Judah  is  to  be  complete,  but  at 
the  moment  of  greatest  danger,  Jahveh  will  overthrow  Assyria 
and  the  new  age  will  begin.  "His  future  ideal  is  not  an  idealiz- 
ing of  the  present,  not  a  product  of  the  poetic  fancy,  but  a  fully 
new  creation."  Robertson  Smith*^  disagreed  absolutely  with 
Duhm's  eschatological  interpretation.  Isaiah  expected,  not  a 
new  creation,  but  a  reformation  within  Israel  which  should  make 
it  a  holy  state,  consistent  with  its  position  as  the  chosen  people 
of  a  holy  God.  This  reformation  was  to  be  brought  about  by 
Jahveh 's  guiding  care  for  His  people,  exactly  as  all  other 
changes  in  the  character  or  fortune  of  the  nation  had  been 
effected.  Duhm's  commentary  on  Isaiah*^  was  published  in 
1892.  The  introduction  deals  wholly  with  the  analysis  of  the 
book,  and  consistently  takes  the  position  that  the  book  of  Isaiah 
which  we  now  possess  is  a  collection  of  prophecies  of  various 
periods,  including  passages  dating  from  the  time  of  Isaiah  him- 
self to  that  of  the  Hasmoneans,  and  that  each  section  of  the  book 
must  be  studied  as  a  unit  and  dated  according  to  the  evidence 
it  presents  without  regard  to  the  sections  which  precede  or  fol- 
low it.  The  analysis  is  carefully  worked  out  in  the  body  of 
the  commentary,  which  has  served  as  a  starting  point  for  all 
later  critical  study  of  the  book.  Duhm's  view  of  Isaiah's  Mes- 
sianic expectation  remains  unchanged  from  that  of  his  earlier 
work.  He  assigns  1:21-26  to  Isaiah's  youth,  when  his  work 
as  a  prophet  was  just  beginning,  while  9  : 1  ff.,  11 : 1  ff.,  32  : 1  ff., 
together  with  2:2-4,  belong  to  the  end  of  Isaiah's  life,  after  the 
invasion  of  Sennacherib.     He  assumes  that  Isaiah  never  made 

^^  Duhm,  Die  Theologie  der  Propheten,  Bonn,  1875. 

*"  Robertson  Smith,  The  Prophets  of  Israel,  London,  1882. 

^^Duhm,  Jesaia,  Gottingen   (edition  of  1914  used). 


180  JOURNAL    OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

public  his  hope  for  an  ideal  kingdom,  but  described  it  to  the 
band  of  disciples  only. 

With  the  general  acceptance  of  Duhm's  method  of  analysis, 
the  question  of  the  authorship  of  the  Messianic  sections  in  the 
book  of  Isaiah  at  once  became  prominent.  The  consistency  of 
such  a  hope  with  the  rest  of  the  teaching  of  Isaiah,  and  with  the 
historical  conditions  under  which  he  lived  were  obviously  the 
chief  test  of  authenticity. 

Guthe*^  divides  Isaiah's  conception  of  the  Messianic  age  into 
two  periods.  At  the  beginning  of  his  ministry,  Isaiah  believed 
that  the  destruction  of  the  land  of  Judah  by  Assyria  was  a 
necessary  preliminary  to  the  restoration.  After  that  destruc- 
tion, there  should  come  a  new  sprout  from  the  cut-down  trunk 
of  Jesse,  and  a  righteous  judge  in  contrast  to  the  reigning  king 
should  rule  over  the  remnant  of  the  people.  In  the  second 
period,  there  is  no  expectation  of  any  individual,  the  rescue  and 
final  security  of  Jerusalem  is  to  be  brought  about  directly  by 
Jahveh,  and  the  emphasis  is  laid  on  the  general  virtue  of  the 
new  community.  This  era  will  begin  not  through  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  but  through  its  marvelous  rescue.*^ 

Giesebrecht**  finds  it  necessary  to  suppose  three  distinct  stages 
in  the  development  of  Isaiah's  hope  for  the  future.  There  are 
really,  he  considers,  two  parts  to  Guthe's  second  period.  First, 
immediately  after  the  fall  of  Samaria,  Isaiah  entertained  high 
hopes  for  the  future  of  Judah,  but  in  the  time  of  Sennacherib 
when  the  alliance  with  Egypt  was  persistently  maintained  in 
spite  of  the  denunciations  of  the  prophet,  he  predicted  salvation 
for  only  a  small  remnant  of  the  nation.  The  promises  which 
had  formerly  included  all  the  nation  were  now  transferred  to 
the  remnant. 

Other  scholars,  however,  assert  that  no  Messianic  hope  of  any- 
kind  could  have  been  consistent  with  Isaiah's  point  of  view. 
Hackmann*^  gives  a  minute  analysis  of  the  book,  agreeing  in  the 
main  with  that  of  Duhm,  and  laying  especial  stress  on  the  lack 
of  evidence  for  any  revision  of  Isaiah's  work  by  the  prophet 
himself.     Hackmann  insists   that  Isaiah's   expectation   of  the 

^  Guthe,  Das  ZuTcunftsMld  des  Jesaia,  Leipzig,  1885. 

^  Guthe  abandoned  this  view  in  his  Jesaia,  Tubingen,  1907. 

**  Giesebrecht,  Beitrdge  zur  JesaiaTcritiJc,  Gottingen,  1890. 

*=  Hackmann,  Die  Zukunftserwartung  des  Jesaia,  Gottingen,  1893. 


SMITH:     THE    MESSIANIC    IDEAL    OF   ISAIAH  181 

future  runs  in  '^an  unbroken  line,"  tliat  he  expected  nothing 
but  total  destruction  for  both  Israel  and  Judah,  and  that  all 
sections  describing  restoration  weaken  Isaiah's  message.  They 
are  to  be  accounted  for  as  affixed  at  the  beginning  and  end  of 
originally  independent  collections  of  Isaiah's  prophecies  by  the 
different  compilers  who  sought  to  re-inforce  their  own  ideas  by 
the  authority  of  Isaiah.  Hackmann,  however,  accepts  1 :  21  ff. 
as  genuine  without  making  it  quite  clear  how  this  passage  agrees 
with  the  expectation  of  total  destruction.*^  Volz*"  also  denies 
the  genuineness  of  the  Messianic  sections,  but  less  as  the  result 
of  an  analysis  of  the  book  of  Isaiah,  than  as  a  necessary  corol- 
lary to  his  statement  that  the  nature  of  pre-exilic  prophecy  is 
inconsistent  with  the  Messianic  idea.  Pre-exilic  prophecy,  ac- 
cording to  Volz,  is  not  ' '  wisdom ' '  but  prediction,  and  the  predic- 
tion of  evil.  The  hope  of  good  was  related  only  to  the  faithful 
remnant  and  was  not  openly  expressed.  He  further  makes  the 
rather  incomprehensible  assertion  that  to  preach  a  Messianic  age 
while  there  was  a  king  on  the  throne  would  be  to  incite  a  rebel- 
lion. Isaiah  looked  for  the  punishment  of  the  nation  with  the 
ultimate  preservation  of  a  faithful  remnant  and  a  time  of  pros- 
perity to  come ;  of  this  Jerusalem  is  to  be  the  centre.  The  whole 
is  to  be  brought  about  directly  by  Jahveh  Himself  without 
human  agency.  The  only  definite  expression  of  this  ideal  is  to 
be  found  in  1 :  21  ff .,  to  which  the  other  hopeful  predictions  in 
the  book  are  in  direct  contradiction. 

Of  the  more  recent  commentators  on  Isaiah,  Marti*^  re-affirms 
Hackmann 's  view  without  change,  Condamin*^  accepts  all  the 
passages  without  question  and  even  keeps  the  Messianic  inter- 
pretation of  7 :  14  ff.,  while  Gray^^  leaves  the  question  open, 
although  he  is  evidently  more  inclined  to  doubt  the  genuineness 
of  all  except  1 :  21  ff. 

*^GeoTg  Beer  ( ' ' Wellhausen  Festschrift, ' '  ZAW.,  Beihefte  27,  pp. 
15-35),  who  also  asserts  that  Isaiah  was  the  prophet  of  doom  only,  more 
consistently  treats  1:  24  ff.  like  the  other  Messianic  passages,  joining  all 
four  with  the  eschatological  pictures  of  the  reign  of  Jahveh,  and  making 
them  therefore  post-exilic. 

*^Volz,  Die  Vorexilisclie  Tahwehprophetie,  Gottingen,  1897. 

*^  Marti,  Jesaja,  Tiibingen,  1900. 

*®Condamin,  Le  Livre  d'Isaie,  Paris,  1905. 

'^  G.  B.  Gray,  Isaiah,  Int.  Grit.  Com.,  1911. 


182  JOURNAL    OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

THE  CONSISTENCY  OF  A  MESSIANIC  EXPECTATION 
WITH  THE  TEACHING  OF  ISAIAH 

As  has  been  said,  the  only  test  for  the  genuineness  of  the  Mes- 
sianic sections  among  the  prophecies  ascribed  to  Isaiah  lies  in 
their  consistency  with  the  historical  conditions  of  the  time  and 
with  other  prophecies  known  to  be  authentic.  (The  evidence 
of  the  vocabulary  of  the  four  poems  has  already  been  shown  to 
be  indecisive.) 

Isaiah  saw  the  vision  which  called  him  to  the  work  of  a  prophet 
*'in  the  year  that  king  Uzziah  died"  (6:1),  and  according  to 
the  superscription,  1 : 1  (which  in  this  case  agrees  with  the 
internal  evidence),  he  continued  to  prophesy  through  the  reigns 
of  Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah.  Thus  he  began  his  work  just 
as  a  period  of  peace  and  great  material  prosperity  was  drawing 
to  a  close.  During  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II  in  Samaria,  and 
Uzziah  in  Jerusalem,  both  kingdoms  made  considerable  additions 
to  their  territory  and  engaged  lar.gely  in  commerce.  Egypt 
under  the  XXII  dynasty  was  unable  to  interfere  in  Palestine, 
and  Assyria  for  fifty  years  after  the  invasion  of  Adad-nirari 
III  in  797  B.  c.  left  the  West  lands  in  peace.^^  When  after  the 
death  of  Jeroboam  II  the  North  kingdom  was  distracted  by 
insurrections  and  revolts,  Judah  must  easily  have  regained  abso- 
lute independence,  and  her  prosperity  was  helped  rather  than 
hindered  by  the  anarchy  of  her  neighbor.  According  to  II 
Kings  14 :  22,  Uzziah  held  and  fortified  Elath  on  the  Red  Sea, 
so  that  Jerusalem  had  a  port  for  her  commerce,  and  it  is  clear 
from  the  words  of  Isaiah  that  Judah,  like  Samaria  in  the  time 
of  Amos  and  Hosea,  suffered  from  the  consequent  concentration 
of  wealth  in  the  hands  of  a  few,  as  the  capitalists,  lending  money 
at  interest,  and  seizing  the  property  of  debtors  unable  to  pay, 
'4aid  field  to  field  until"  they  '' dwelt  alone  in  the  land, "  5:8. 
During  the  independent  reign  of  Jotham  conditions  probably 
remained  much  the  same,  since  no  record  of  tribute  from  Jeru- 
salem is  found  in  the  Assyrian  monuments,  and  the  sole  refer- 
ence to  Jotham 's  activity  in  the  Biblical  record  (II  Kings 
15:35)   is  the  statement  that  he  built  the  upper  gate  of  the 

"Hastings,  BiUe  Dictionary  (1  volume  edition),  article   '< Israel. '^ 


SMITH:     THE    MESSIANIC    IDEAL    OF    ISAIAH  183 

temple  of  Jahveh — a  work  which  is  obviously  suited  to  a  time 
of  peace.^- 

In  the  year  735  b.  c.  with  the  accession  of  Pekah  in  Samaria 
and  Ahaz  in  Judah  came  a  change.  Pekah,  in  alliance  with 
Rezin  of  Damascus,  was  preparing  for  war  against  Assyria,  and 
the  allies  probably  insisted  that  Ahaz  should  join  them.  When 
he  refused,  they  marched  against  Jerusalem  which  was  appar- 
ently totally  unprepared  to  stand  a  siege.  In  spite  of  Isaiah's 
exhortation  to  trust  in  Jahveh,  and  his  scorn  of  ''the  two  tails 
of  smoking  fire-brands"  (7: 1-17),  Ahaz  sent  a  present  with  an 
offer  of  submission  to  Tiglath-Pileser  of  Assyria  and  asked  his 
aid  (II  Kings  16:7-9).  Tiglath-Pileser  came,  as  he  must  have 
done  in  any  case  for  the  sake  of  his  own  authority,  conquered 
the  armies  of  the  allies,  slew  the  two  kings,  made  Damascus  an 
Assyrian  province,  and  set  Hoshea  on  the  throne  of  Samaria. 
Ahaz  went  to  Damascus  with  the  other  rulers  of  the  West-land 
to  declare  in  person  his  allegiance  to  the  victor,  and  thus  began 
the  long  period  of  Judean  vassalage  to  Assyria. 

Tiglath-Pileser  died  in  727,  and  Hoshea  refused  his  tribute  to 
Assyria.  In  725  an  Assyrian  army  appeared  in  Palestine  and 
after  a  siege  of  three  years  took  Samaria  in  the  first  year  of  the 
reign  of  Sargon.  27,290  of  the  inhabitants  were  deported,  colo- 
nists from  other  parts  of  the  empire  were  settled  in  their  places 
and  the  North  kingdom  became  an  Assyrian  province.  In 
Judah,  however,  Hezekiah  continued  to  submit  to  the  Assyrian 
yoke  which  his  predecessor  had  assumed  and  was  left  unmolested 
in  722,  and  probably  also  in  the  campaign  of  Sargon  against 
Ashdod  in  711. 

At  the  death  of  Sargon  in  705,  however,  the  hope  of  regaining 
independence  proved  too  great  a  temptation  to  be  resisted. 
From  the  East  came  the  flattering  embassy  of  Merodach-Baladan 
(II  Kings  20:12ff.),  from  Egypt  came  lavish  promises  of  aid. 
The  hopes  of  the  nation  were  high.  22 :  6-14  gives  a  vivid  picture 
of  the  eagerness  of  the  people  during  the  preparation  for  the 
revolt.     On  the  North,  Aram;    on  the  East,  Kir  and  Elam,  the 

"  If,  as  seems  probable,  the  reference  to  Az-ri-ia-u  of  Ja-u-da-ai  in  the 
annals  of  Tiglath-Pileser  for  the  year  738  b.  c.  is  to  be  taken  with  Winekler 
as  referring  to  the  land  of  Yadi  in  North  Syria  near  Zinjirli,  the  kingdom 
of  Judah  suffered  not  at  all  from  Assyria,  during  the  reigns  of  Uzziah 
and  Jotham. 

13 


184  JOURNAL    OF    BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

allies  of  Merodach-Baladaii,  are  preparing  their  weapons  to 
assist  in  the  fight  against  Sennacherib.  Hezekiah  's  mercenaries 
fill  the  valleys  around  Jerusalem  with  horses  and  chariots,  and 
the  city  is  prepared  to  withstand  a  siege  if  necessary.^^  From 
the  annals  of  Sennacherib  we  know  that  the  Phoenicians  and 
the  Philistines  also  joined  in  the  revolt,  and  that  the  king  of 
Ekron,  who  wished  to  remain  faithful  to  Assyria,  was  sent  by 
his  subjects  to  Jerusalem  to  be  guarded  by  Hezekiah.  Sen- 
nacherib after  a  victorious  campaign  against  Merodach-Baladan 
marched  West,  and  beginning  with  Sidon,  captured  city  after 
city;  won  a  victory  over  Egypt  at  Eltekeh;  marched  against 
Hezekiah,  took  forty-six  of  his  strong  cities  and  shut  him  up 
in  Jerusalem  ''like  a  bird  in  a  cage."  Hezekiah,  deserted  by 
his  mercenaries,  sent  an  offer  of  submission  to  Sennacherib 
(KB.,  II,  pp.  94-97,  cf.  II  Kings  18: 13-16).  Sennacherib,  who 
had  lost  a  part  of  his  army  through  plague  and  was  eager  to 
return  to  the  East  where  Merodach-Baladan  w^as  again  active, 
accepted  Hezekiah 's  offer  and  left  him  in  possession  of  what 
remained  of  his  kingdom. 

Recently  many  scholars^*  have  returned  to  the  view  first  sug- 
gested by  Rawlinson  that  Sennacherib  made  two  expeditions 
against  Jerusalem,  one  in  701  in  which  he  was  successful,  and 
the  other  about  690  in  which  his  army  was  attacked  by  plague, 
and  he  was  obliged  to  retire  ignominiously  to  Assyria.  In  the 
almost  entire  absence  of  inscriptions  for  the  last  years  of  Sen- 

^^22:6,  7  have  generally  been  interpreted  of  an  army  marching  against 
Jerusalem,  and  the  history  of  the  country  from  the  time  of  Uzziah  onwards 
has  been  searched  in  vain  to  find  a  time  at  which  Elam  and  its  neighbors 
were  the  dangerous  enemies  of  Judah.  The  suggestion  that  the  reference 
is  to  contingents  in  Sennacherib's  army  (in  itself  scarcely,  satisfactory)  is 
rendered  most  improbable  by  the  fact  that  at  this  period  Elam  was  ^h 
independent  nation,  an  ally  of  Merodach-Baladan,  and  in  no  way  to  be 
considered  a  vassal  of  Assyria.  Further  it  is  somewhat  difficult  to  see  why 
any  people,  however  desperate,  should  rejoice  at  the  appearance  of  an 
armed  foe  filling  the  valleys.  On  the  other  hand,  if  Kir  and  Elam  were 
expected  to  fight  on  the  side  of  Judah,  the  passage  gives  a  consistent 
account  of  the  preparation  for  the  great  revolt  of  705:  first,  the  gathering 
of  the  army  of  the  allies;  then  the  soldiers  assembled  for  the  defense  of 
Jerusalem;  and  finally,  the  fortification  of  the  city  and  the  building  of 
the  Siloam  tunnel. 

"E.  g.  Kemper  Fullerton,  BiUiotheca  Sacra,  LXIII,  pp.  577-634,  E.  W. 
Eogers,    ^'Wellhausen  Festschrift,"    ZAW.,  Beihefte  27,  pp.  317-327. 


SMITH:     THE    MESSIAXIC    IDEAL    OF   ISAIAH  185 

nacherib's  reign,  positive  evidence  for  the  correctness  or  incor- 
rectness of  this  view  is  not  forthcoming.  The  argument  for  a 
second  expedition  is  briefly  as  follows : 

There  are  in  II  Kings  18 :  13-19 :  37  three  narratives,  one 
of  which,  II  Kings  18 :  13-16,  agrees  almost  perfectly  with  the 
Assyrian  record ;  while  the  other  two,  II  Kings  18  :  17-19  :  8  and 
19 :  9-37,  directly  contradict  both  the  Assyrian  account  and  II 
Kings  18 :  13-16,  since  they  assert  a  signal  deliverance  of  Jeru- 
salem. The  third  narrative  is  supported  by  a  tale  in  Herodotus 
(II,  141)  which  is  evidently  based  on  the  destruction  of  the 
Assyrian  army  by  the  bubonic  plague  (cf.  II  Kings  19:35),^^ 
and  the  second  (18:17,  19:8)  by  a  relief  portraying  Sen- 
nacherib receiving  the  tribute  of  Lachish,  a  town  which  is  not 
named  in  the  list  of  captured  cities  in  the  account  of  the  cam- 
paign of  701.  The  occurrence  of  at  least  one  Western  campaign 
during  the  last  years  of  Sennacherib's  reign  is  proved  by  an 
inscription  published  in  1904  by  Scheil.^^  This  may  easily  have 
been  one  of  a  series  of  expeditions,  the  record  of  which  has  not 
yet  been  discovered.  In  II  Kings  19 : 9,  Tirhaka  is  mentioned 
as  the  leader  of  the  Egyptian  army  (the  Assyrian  record  for 
701  speaks  of  the  ''kings  of  Egypt")  and  is  called  ''king  of 
Ethiopia."  Therefore  this  passage  must  refer  to  a  campaign 
after  691,  the  earliest  possible  date  for  the  accession  of  Tirhaka. 
This  later  date  for  the  campaign  is  further  rendered  probable 
by  the  fact  that  II  Kings  19 :  37  speaks  of  the  death  of  Sen- 
nacherib in  682  as  occurring  immediately  after  his  return  to 
Nineveh. 

This  evidence  is  not,  however,  conclusive.  The  most  impor- 
tant links  in  the  chain,  the  narratives  in  II  Kings  18 :  17  ff.  and 
in  Herodotus,  are  obviously  legendary,  and  although  we  must 
recognize  that  such  legends  have  almost  always  a  basis  in  fact, 
we  cannot  place  much  reliance  on  the  detail^  of  the  stories.  The 
only  fact  for  which  the  agreement  of  these  legends  furnishes 
evidence  is  that  at  some  time  the  army  of  Sennacherib  was 
attacked  by  plague,  and  that  Sennacherib  soon  after  returned  to 
Assyria.  It  seems  hardly  necessary  to  assume  a  second  cam- 
paign to  find  a  place  for  such  a  disaster.     The  Assyrian  records 

=^  G.  A.  Smith,  Historical  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land,  pp.  158,  236. 
^  Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels  to  the  Old  Testament,  p.  345. 


186  JOURNAL    OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

are  frequently  silent  concerning  defeat,  or  report  a  defeat  as  a 
victory  (cf.  KB.,  II,  pp.  40,  41  with  KB.,  II,  pp.  276,  277)." 
If  Sennacherib  had  lost  a  part  of  his  army  in  701,  he  would  not 
have  recorded  the  loss  in  his  inscriptions.  The  contradictions 
between  II  Kings  18 :  13-16  and  the  following  narratives  may  be 
explained  as  due  to  the  difference  in  the  character  of  the  narra- 
tives. 18 :  13-16  was  probably  taken  by  the  compiler  from  the 
annals  of  king  Hezekiah,  while  the  other  two  narratives  belong 
to  the  collections  of  legends  of  the  prophets,  parallel  to  the 
stories  of  Elijah  and  Elisha.  Such  legends  would  naturally 
emphasize  the  deliverance  of  the  city  and  ignore  the  submission 
of  Hezekiah.  Since  the  compiler  arranged  the  narrative  as  it 
now  stands  from  three  different  sources,  obviously  with  the 
intention  of  working  up  to  a  fitting  climax,^^  there  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  Hezekiah 's  offer  of  submission  was  the  first  step 
in  the  matter.  If  Sennacherib  had  lost  a  part  of  his  army  and 
also  had  heard  of  the  renewed  activity  of  Merodach-Baladan  (II 
Kings  19 :  7  seems  to  refer  to  news  from  Babylon  rather  than 
to  Tirhaka's  advance  which  is  part  of  the  introduction  to  the 
third  narrative),  he  would  have  been  very  willing  to  accept 
Hezekiah 's  offer  of  submission  which  would  leave  him  free  to 
return  at  once  to  the  East.  When  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem 
learned  of  the  plague  and  of  the  revolt  of  Merodach-Baladan, 
the  natural  conclusion  would  be  that  both  were  the  work  of 
Jahveh  to  protect  His  people. 

It  is  said,  however,  that  a  sparing  of  Jerusalem  after  forty-six 
other  cities  of  Judah  had  been  taken,  the  whole  country  devas- 
tated, and  an  enormous  tribute  exacted,  is  not  a  sufficiently 
great  deliverance  to  account  for  the  narratives  of  II  Kings 
18 :  16  ff.  It  may  seem  to  us  a  natural  act  for  Sennacherib  to 
accept  tribute  and  save  himself  the  trouble  of  a  prolonged  sieg&, 
but  it  would  hardly  have  seemed  so  natural  to  the  people  who 
had  seen  an  Assyrian  army  before  their  walls.  To  the  Jews 
who  had  seen  the  destruction  of  Ashdod  in  711,  and  but  recently 
that  of  Ekron,  it  must  have  seemed  a  miracle  of  Jahveh 's  work- 
ing that  their  king,  the  leader  of  the  revolt,  was  left  ruling  over 
an  unharmed  city. 

"  Quoted  by  Kemper  Fullerton,  Bihliotheca  Sacra,  LXIII,  pp.  577-634. 
^^Fullerton,  ibid. 


SMITH:     THE    MESSIANIC    IDEAL    OF    ISAIAH  187 

The  other  points  offer  no  real  difficulties.  The  absence  of 
mention  of  Lachish  in  the  Assyrian  record  would  be  natural  if 
Lachish  was  one  of  the  '' forty-six  fenced  cities"  of  Hezekiah, 
and  it  apparently  did  belong  to  Judah  in  the  reign  of  Amaziah 
(II  Kings  14 :  19,  cf .  also  Mi.  1 :  13) .  The  date  of  Tirhaka  really 
fits  neither  theory.  According  to  Breasted,  his  accession  could 
hardly  have  occurred  before  688,^^  and  it  is  not  probable  that 
Hezekiah  ruled  so  late.  Breasted  also  concludes  from  a  muti- 
lated tablet*^^  that  Tirhaka  led  a  campaign  to  Palestine  in  his 
youth,  while  his  uncle  was  king  of  Egypt.  Any  account  of  the 
expedition  written  after  688  would  naturally  use  his  title.  The 
ignoring  of  any  interval  between  the  return  of .  Sennacherib  and 
his  death  is  quite  in  keeping  with  the  whole  character  of  the 
legends  of  the  prophets. 

The  only  other  important  information  which  we  have  concern- 
ing Hezekiah 's  reign  is  found  in  II  Kings  18 :  3-6,  which  asserts 
that  he  removed  the  high  places.  Although  the  reform  is 
described  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  post-Deuteronomic 
redactor,  the  mention  of  the  brazen  serpent  indicates  that  the 
reforms  themselves  were  actual.  They  were  probably  under- 
taken in  the  last  years  of  his  reign  after  the  deliverance  of 
Jerusalem^^  It  is  during  this  time  that  the  expectation  of  the 
reign  of  an  ideal  king  might  easily  develop.  Jahveh  had  showTi 
His  ability  to  protect  Zion  by  His  direct  intervention,  and  the 
whole  people,  with  the  remembrance  of  their  deliverance  fresh 
in  their  minds,  were  eagerly  serving  Jahveh  alone,  as  their  king 
demanded.  Surely  it  would  be  natural  to  hope  that  Jahveh 
would  soon  raise  up  among  Hezekiah 's  successors  a  king  who 
should  enable  them  wholly  to  free  themselves  from  the  Assyrian 
supremacy,  and  would  regain  for  the  chosen  people  the  glory 
of  the  reign  of  Solomon. 

It  has  been  asserted  by  some  scholars,^-  however,  that  such  a 
hope  could  have  formed  no  part  of  Isaiah's  teaching  since  he 

"Breasted,  Ancient  Eecords,  IV,  p.  492. 

•^  Ibid.,  pp.  455-56. 

^^  If  there  were  two  invasions  of  Sennacherib,  the  reforms  must  have 
come  in  the  internal  between  them  and  would  then  have  furnished  the 
ground  for  Isaiah's  faith  in  the  j)rotection  of  Jahveh.  It  is  difficult  to 
see,  in  that  case,  what  motives  influenced  Hezekiah  to  reform  the  religious 
practices. 

^E.  g.  Hackmann,  Volz,  Marti. 


188  JOURNAL   OF  BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

considered  that  the  sin  of  Judah  could  be  adequately  punished 
only  by  the  total  destruction  of  the  nation  and  often  predicted 
such  destruction.^^  The  song  of  the  vineyard,  5 : 1-7,  is  cited, 
and  compared  with  such  passages  as  6 :  11-13,  22 :  14,  5 :  29, 
30 :  14,  31 :  3.  Surely,  it  is  argued,  the  man  who  expected  such 
destruction  could  not  have  predicted  at  the  same  time  the 
rescue  of  the  nation  from  Assyria  and  its  subsequent  prosperity. 
Therefore,  all  those  sections  which  promise  a  saved  remnant  or 
the  defeat  of  Assyria  or  the  invulnerability  of  Zion  must  be 
interpolations  made  in  order  to  relieve  the  gloom  of  the  prophet  'S\ 
real  message. 

This  conclusion  rests  on  the  assumption  that  such  predictions 
of  doom  are  to  be  interpreted  with  the  literalness  of  a  mathe- 
matical proposition,  x — x=0.  Now  a  preacher  endeavoring  to 
arouse  an  indifferent  audience  does  not  use  terms  with  mathe- 
matical accuracy.  It  is  a  commonplace  of  interpretation  in 
any  literature  that  rhetorical  figures  must  not  be  pressed  too 
far.  5 : 1-7  is  a  parable  in  form,  while  30 :  14,  the  potter  smash- 
ing the  marred  vessel,  and  31 :  3  where  the  helper  and  the  helped 
stumble  to  destruction  together,  are  both  figurative.  6 :  11-13 ; 
22 :  14 ;  31 : 3,  are  meant  as  forceful  portrayals  of  a  terrible 
chastisement,  rather  than  as  assurances  of  the  annihilation  of 
the  nation.  Also  the  idea  of  the  literal  annihilation  of  a  nation 
like  Judah  by  an  invading  army  was  unthinkable  at  that  time. 
A  few  mud  villages  could  be  ground  to  dust,  even  a  strongly 
walled  city  might  '' become  heaps,"  prisoners  were  killed  or 
sold  as  slaves,  but  the  larger  proportion  of  the  population  would 
expect  to  survive  any  invasion  and  to  rebuild  their  homes  upon 
the  ruins.  Campaigns  were  not  managed  in  those  days  with  quite 
the  modern  thoroughness,  there  were  no  machine  guns  to  kilj** 
men  by  the  thousands.  An  invading  army  ruthlessly  destroyed 
all  which  fell  in  its  way,  but  in  a  hill  country  like  Judea,  with 
its  heights  from  which  an  army  could  be  seen  hours  before  its . 
arrival,  with  its  winding  valleys  full  of  caves,  there  was  much 
which  would  never  fall  in  an  enemy's  way.  Sargon  captured 
Samaria  and,  following  the  precedent  set  by  Tiglath-Pileser,  car- 
ried off  27,000  people,  but  two  years  later  Samaria  was  ready 
for  another  rebellion,  and  two  hundred  years  later  was  still  a 

^  Marti,  Jesaja,  p.  xxi. 


SMITH  :     THE   MESSIANIC   IDEAL   OF   ISAIAH  189 

nation  with  sufficient  consciousness  of  its  own  identity  to  inter- 
fere seriously  with  the  rebuilding  of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem. 

Once  these  things  are  realized,  the  "irreconcilable"  contra- 
diction between  Isaiah's  prophecies  of  destruction  and  those  of 
restoration  vanishes.  Furthermore  the  long  continuance  of 
Isaiah's  ministry  would  be  psychologically  inexplicable  if  he  had 
been  a  prophet  of  disaster  alone.  Isaiah  was  not  a  ''transient 
evangelist"  like  Amos.  He  was  the  leader  of  his  nation  through 
a  long  life.  Had  he  simply  reproved  and  denounced,  he  would 
have  been  run  out  of  town  as  Amos  was  in  much  less  than  forty 
year5.^* 

Isaiah's  certainty  of  the  survival  of  a  remnant  of  the  people 
is  preserved  to  us,  outside  his  predictions,  in  the  name  of  his 
eldest  son,  yi^^  nXtT-  Prof.  J.  M.  P.  Smith  has  recently  sug- 
gested^^ that  the  only  possible  meaning  of  this  name  which  gives 
any  point  to  the  presence  of  the  boy  at  the  interview  with  Ahaz 
(chapter  7)  is  ^l(^\  "^Nt?^  ''a  remnant  shall  remain."  Obvi- 
ously a  prediction  of  the  survival  of  a  remnant  may  be  either  a 
threat  or  a  promise,  according  to  the  point  of  view.  At  a  time 
of  prosperity  it  is  a  threat  emphasizing  the  greatness  of  an 
impending  disaster.  This,  of  course,  is  its  meaning  applied  to 
Samaria  and  Damascus  in  chapter  7.^^  In  passages  such  as 
1 :  18 ;  29 :  4 ;  30 :  17,  the  emphasis  is  clearly  on  the  terrible 
completeness  of  the  desolation  which  will  leave  Judah  like  ''a 
lodge  in  a  garden  of  cucumbers"  or  a  single  beacon  on  a  hill- 
top. But  when  the  dread  Assyrian  army  was  actually  approach- 
ing, when  the  allies  were  deserting  or  falling  one  after  another 
into  the  hands  of  the  conqueror,  then  the  thought  that  after 
all  some  part  of  the  nation  would  escape,  brought  comfort.  It 
was  then  that  Isaiah  spoke  "of  the  survi\dng  remnant  with  a  new 
significance.     Here  belong  1 :  24-26 ;  6  :  13  ;  10 :  20-23  ;  37  :  31-32. 

But  according  to  the  narrative  in  chapters  36-37  Isaiah's 
encouragement  at  this  time  was  far  more  definite.  Not  only 
would  a  remnant  of  the  people  be  left,  Jerusalem  itself  would 
entirely  escape  destruction  (cf.  37:33).  Now,  as  has  already 
been  said,  although  these  two  narratives,  being  legendary  in 

«*  G.  A.  Barton,  JBL.,  XXIII,  p.  69. 
^ZAW.,  1914,  pp.  219-224. 

''^Cf.  Kemper  FuUerton's  interpretation  of  Is.  9:  8-10:  4;  5:  26-27,  in 
AJSL.,  XXXIII,  9-39. 


190  JOURNAL    OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

character,  cannot  be  trusted  for  accuracy  of  detail,  they  prob- 
ably had  their  origin  in  an  actual  event.  The  theme  of  both  is 
that  Isaiah  prophesied  the  safety  of  Jerusalem,  and  his  proph- 
ecy was  fulfilled.  If  nothing  of  the  sort  happened,  it  is  dif- 
ficult to  account  not  only  for  the  rise  of  the  two  legends,  but 
also  for  the  influence  and  importance  of  Isaiah.  If  Isaiah  proph- 
esied the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  Jerusalem  w^as  not 
destroyed,  why  should  the  greatness  of  his  fame  have  led  a 
later  generation  to  ascribe  to  him  so  many  things  which  he  did 
not  write?  It  must  be  granted,  however,  that  of  the  two  pas- 
sages, apart  from  the  narrative,  which  are  generally  considered 
in  this  connection,  one,  8 :  14,  is  somewhat  doubtful  in  meaning, 
and  the  other,  28 :  16,  comes  in  the  collection  chapters  28-31 
which  contains  an  especially  large  proportion  of  late  material. 
With  these  may  be  put  8 :  8  if  we  read  with  Duhm  '?N  )}t^y  ^D." 
and  thus  take  the  second  part  of  the  verse  as  a  promise  of 
protection.''^  ^^ 

Further,  if  any  of  the  predictions  of  disaster  to  Assyria  are 
genuine  they  support  the  prophecy  of  the  escape  of  Jerusalem. "^^ 
Of  these,  10 :  5  ff.  is,  at  least  in  part,  the  work  of  Isaiah,  and  the 
nature  of  the  beginning  is  such  that  some  conclusion  predicting 
the  downfall  of  Assyria  is  required,  even  though  the  present 
form  of  the  conclusion  may  be  the  work  of  a  redactor.  Chapter 
31  clearly  contains  much  late  material,  yet  the  definiteness  of 
verse  8  presents  a  sufficient  contrast  to  the  later  vague  eschato- 
logical  pictures  to  suggest  that  here  also  the  nucleus  of  the 
latter  part  of  the  chapter  was  Isaianic. 

o^Duhm,  Jesaia  (ed.  1902),  p.  59. 

^  Gray,  Isaiah,  pp.  148,  194-199. 

'^°  The  text  of  chapter  6:13  is  so  corrupt  that  the  original  meaning  of 
the  verse  cannot  now  be  determined. 

^"Georg  Beer  {Wellliausen  Festschrift,  pp.  15-35)  denies  any  of  the 
anti-Assyrian  passages  to  Isaiah.  10:  5-34  is  a  composite  of  which  10:  5-19 
is  a  poem  against  Assyria  written  just  before  the  fall  of  Nineveh,  10:  20-27 
is  post-exilic,  v.  27  refel-ring  to  the  Seleueid  kingdom,  and  10:  28-37  is 
Maccabean.  Aside  from  the  general  argument,  that  these  passages  are 
inconsistent  with  Isaiah's  view  of  the  Assyrian  as  Jahveh's  instrument, 
Beer  declares  that  the  mention  of  ''all  the  earth"  10:  14  requires  a  date 
after  the  conquest  of  Egypt  in  670.  One  wishes  that  all  conquering  armies 
were  equally  exact  in  their  claims. 


SMITH:     THE    MESSIANIC    IDEAL    OF    ISAIAH  191 

Duhm'^  concluded  that  Isaiah  preached  this  hope  for  a  rem- 
nant which  was  to  consist  of  his  disciples  alone,  a  sort  of  inner 
circle.  This  idea,  however,  puts  too  much  weight  on  the  single 
section  8 :  16-18,  for  there  is  no  hint  of  an  inner  circle  elsewhere 
in  Isaiah's  teaching.'-  Isaiah's  idea  seems  to  have  been  rather 
that  the  remnant  from  all  classes  of  the  nation,  appalled  by  the 
desolation  which  the  Assyrian  army  spread  through  the  land, 
would  realize  the  folly  of  expecting  help  from  men,  and  would 
rely  on  Jahveli  alone ;  that  then  Jahveh  would  punish  the  pride 
of  Assyria,  rescue  His  people,  preserve  His  chosen  city,  and 
restore  ''her  counsellors  as  at  the  beginning."  The  events  so 
far  as  they  can  be  ascertained  from  the  historical  records 
occurred  as  Isaiah  expected. 

Further  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  (composed  in  the  genera- 
tion after  Isaiah)  testifies  to  the  pre-eminence  of  the  one  place 
for  sacrifice  which  Jahveh  ''shall  choose  to  set  His  name  upon 
it, ' '  and  Jeremiah  spoke  some  of  his  strongest  invectives  against 
those  who  trusted  in  the  presence  of  the  temple  of  Jahveh  to 
save  them  and  their  city  from  the  enemy  (Jer.  7,  etc.).  Older 
scholars  rightly  saw  here  the  result  of  the  vindicated  confidence 
of  Isaiah  in  the  protecting  power  of  Jahveh.'^ 

If  then  Isaiah  saw  his  faith  in  Jahveh  justified  by  the  depar- 
ture of  Sennacherib,  and  his  desire  for  the  repentance  of  his 
people  at  least  partly  satisfied  in  the  reforms  of  Hezekiah,  the 
Messianic  prophecies  in  chapters  9  and  11  form  the  fitting 
climax  to  his  ministry.  Hezekiah,  vacillating,  easily  influenced 
for  evil  as  well  as  for  good,  was  far  from  being  an  ideal  king. 
Surely  Jahveh,  who  had  already  done  so  much  for  His  people; 
would  crown  His  goodness  by  giving  to  them  a  king  who  would 
lead  them  to  greater  glory. 

SOURCES  OF  THE  MESSIANIC  HOPE 

But  although  the  expectation  of  an  illustrious  successor  to 
Hezekiah  was  a  natural  result  of  the  later  events  of  that  king's 
reign,  there  is  still  to  be  considered  the  question  of  the  origin 

'^  Duhm,  Jesaia,  p.  65. 

"Kemper  Fullerton,  HTJiB.,  vol.  6,  pp.  478  ff. 

"  E.  g.  W.  Kobertson  Smith,  The  Prophets  of  Israel,  pp.  363,  370. 


192  JOURNAL    OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

of  the  various  elements  which  Isaiah  combined  in  order  to  por- 
tray the  reign  of  that  successor.  There  are  certainly  details  in 
Isaiah's  description  which  can  hardly  be  supposed  inevitable 
accompaniments  of  the  occupation  of  the  throne  of  David  by  a 
king  of  ability  and  virtue. 

Since  the  publication  of  Gunkel's  Schopfung  und  Chaos  in 
1895,  the  view  that  the  prophetic  ideal  of  a  Messianic  king  was 
borrowed  from  mythology  has  won  several  adherents.  The  work 
of  such  men  as  Hugo  Gressmann^*  has  proved  conclusively 
enough  the  existence  in  Israel  of  a  popular  mythology,  which  in 
many  ways  was  directly  at  variance  with  the  prophetic  teach- 
ings preserved  to  us.  Naturally  the  prophets  could  not  but  be 
influenced  by  the  popular  ideas.  In  the  book  of  Amos,  their 
effect  is  shown  in  direct  contradiction.  To  Amos,  the  '*day  of 
Jahveh"  is  ''darkness  and  not  light,"  *'as  if  a  man  fled  from 
a  lion  and  a  bear  met  him"  (Am.  5 :  18,  19).  In  the  popular 
conception  it  was  a  day  in  which  Jahveh  would  assert  His  supe- 
riority over  other  gods  in  a  mighty  battle  around  Jerusalem.'^'' 
The  influence  of  this  popular  idea  on  Isaiah  (to  whom,  since  it 
is  older  than  Amos,  it  must  have  been  known)  is  seen  in  certain 
of  the  anti-Assyrian  passages.  It  is  only  a  natural  supposition 
that  the  eschatological  expressions  which  are  by  some  scholars 
considered  evidence  of  a  later  date  were  borrowed  intentionally 
by  Isaiah  from  the  popular  notion  of  the  day  of  Jahveh,  in 
order  by  the  use  of  familiar  phrases  to  make  vivid  to  his 
audience  his  conception  of  the  impending  event.  Such  passages 
are  10 :  17  destruction  by  fire,  28 : 2  by  hail,  30 :  27,  33  by  vol- 
canic eruption ;  all  weapons  which  Jahveh,  in  popular  opinion, 
would  turn  in  His  ''day"   against  Israel's  enemies. 

According  to  Gressmann,  this  popular  eschatology  early- 
developed  in  tw^o  directions — towards  doom  and  towards  hope — 
and  the  two  parts  became  entirely  separate.  To  the  eschatology 
of  doom  belonged  the  popular  conceptions  of  Jahveh  as  a 
destroying  God  whose  weapons  were  volcanic  eruptions,  earth- 
quakes, pestilence,  war,  etc.  Certain  of  these  weapons,  e.  g.  the 
volcano,  obviously  originated  outside  of  Palestine  and  probably 
belonged  to  Jahveh  before  Israel  entered  the  country.     Others 

''^  Gressmann,  Der  Ursprung  der  israeUtisch-jiidischen  Eschaiologie,  Gott- 
ingen,  1905. 

"  J.  M.  P.  Smith,  AJTK,  V,  pp.  511  f . 


smith:     the   messianic   ideal   of   ISAIAH  193 

are  probably  to  be  explained  by  the  absorption  into  the  cnlt  of 
Jahveh  of  the  worship  of  specifically  Canaanite  deities,  such 
as  Eesheph,  a  Canaanite  God  of  war  and  pestilence.  On  the 
other  hand  the  eschatology  of  hope  looked  for  the  coming  of  a 
Golden  Age,  a  reappearance  of  Paradise.  To  the  eschatology  of 
doom,  Gressmann  assigns  the  idea  of  the  ' '  Eemnant " ;  to  the 
eschatology  of  hope,  that  of  the  '^ Messiah."  But  in  the  popular 
eschatology,  **the  thesis  to  the  antithesis  of  the  prophets,'* 
the  doom  was  to  fall  wholly  on  the  rest  of  the  world,  not  on  the 
worshippers  of  Jahveh, '^^  for  whom  only  good  could  be  expected. 
The  idea  that  the  ''day  of  Jahveh"  was  to  be  a  day  of  punish- 
ment for  the  wicked  within  Israel  was  a  modification  of  the 
popular  conception  to  something  compatible  with  the  ethical 
sense  of  Amos  and  his  successors.  If  then  Gressmann  is  correct 
in  assuming  that  the  "remnant"  was  a  part  of  the  eschatology 
of  doom,  it  must  have  been  applied  to  a  part  of  the  enemies 
of  Jahveh  who  could  perhaps  escape  total  destruction  by  accept- 
ing Jahveh 's  supremacy  and  becoming  tributary  to  Israel. 
Amos,  then,  who  had  little  occasion  to  expect  any  moderation 
of  the  disaster  which  he  predicted,  simply  transferred  the  rem- 
nant along  with  the  doom  to  Israel  (Am.  5:15).  But  Hosea 
and  Isaiah,  believing  that  at  least  some  portion  of  the  nation 
would  prove  faithful  to  Jahveh,  found  (to  quote  Gressmann) 
in  this  idea  of  a  remnant  a  "bridge"  between  total  destruction 
and  Paradise.  Thus  Isaiah  uses  the  "remnant"  both  to 
emphasize  destruction  and  to  afford  grounds  for  hope.  Gress- 
mann is  therefore  probably  right  in  supposing  that  the  term 
"remnant"  in  the  technical  sense  which  it  evidently  possesses 
in  Am.  5 :  15  and  in  the  works  of  later  prophets  was  taken  from 
the  popular  mythology. 

Is  he  equally  justified  in  asserting  a  mythological  origin  for 
the  idea  of  the  Messiah?  Obviously  certain  details  in  Isaiah's 
conception  of  the  Messianic  reign  can  have  no  other  origin.  The 
peaceful  beasts  in  11 :  6-8  belong  quite  outside  the  realm  of  fact. 
Indeed,  if  we  are  right  in  supposing  that  Isaiah  borrowed  the 
language  of  the  popular  idea  of  the  day  of  Jahveh  and  applied 
it  to  the  relations  between  Judah  and  Assyria,  it  is  only  con- 
sistent to  credit  him  with  using  the  same  method  to  render 

^«  J.  M.  P.  Smith,  AJTh.,  V,  p.  521;    Amos,  5:  18. 


194  JOURNAL    OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

vivid  the  glory  of  the  reign  of  a  future  king.  To  the  Israelites, 
the  most  blissful  period  in  the  history  of  the  world  was  the  time 
of  the  sojourn  of  Adam  and  Eve  in  Eden.  In  Eden  apparently 
the  beasts  were  harmless  since  all  are  brought  to  Adam  for 
names.  In  the  time  of  the  flood  also  Noah  was  evidently  able 
to  allow  the  ''wolf  to  sojourn  with  the  lamb."  In  neither  of 
these  tales,  however,  is  the  peaceful  nature  of  the  animals  an 
important  element,  it  is  merely  assumed  as  a  natural  condition. 
But  in  an  old  Sumerian  myth,  a  part  of  which  describes  the 
condition  of  a  place  (as  yet  unidentified)  before  it  became  the 
habitation  of  man,  it  is  particularly  emphasized.'^'  "^^ 

''1.  They  that  are  lofty,  they  that  are  lofty  are  ye, 

2.  O,  X  pure; 

3.  They  that  are  holy,  they  that  are  lofty  are  ye, 

4.  ...    0,  X  pure. 

5.  X  is  pure,  X  is  bright, 

6.  X  is  splendid,  X  is  resplendent. 

7.  Alone  were  they  in  X,  they  lay  down. 

8.  Where  Enki  and  his  consort  lay, 

9.  That  place  is  splendid,  that  place  is  pure. 

10.  Alone  in  X  they  lay  down. 

11.  Where  Enki  with  Ninella  lay  down, 

12.  That  place  is  splendid,  that  place  is  pure. 

13.  In  X  the  raven  cried  not, 

14.  The  kite  gave  not  his  kite-call, 

15.  The  deadly  lion  destroyed  not, 

16.  The  wolf  a  lamb  seized  not, 

17.  The  dog  the  weak  kid  worried  not, 

18.  The  ewes  the  food-grain  destroyed  not, 

19.  Offspring  increased  not    .     .     .  ^ 

20.  The  birds  of  heaven  their  offspring    .    .    .    not, 

21.  The  doves  were  not  put  to  flight  ( ?)." 

Here  from  lines  13-21  we  get  essentially  the  same  picture  as 
from  Is.  11 :  6-8.  Also  lines  1-6,  9,  12,  offer  a  parallel  to  Is. 
11 :  9.     The  ideas  illustrated  in  this  Sumerian  epic  written  at 

"  G.  A.  Barton,  Archaeology  and  the  Bible,  p.  283,  Philadelphia,  1916. 

■^^  Stephen  Langdon,  The  Sumerian  Epic  of  Paradise,  the  Flood,  and  the 
Fall  of  Man,  Philadelphia,  1915.  Prof.  Langdon  takes  this  section  as  a 
description  of  Dilmun,  the  Babylonian  Paradise,  and  translates  somewhat 
differently,  giving  an  even  closer  parallel  to  Is.  11 :  6-9. 


SMITH  :     THE    MESSIANIC    IDEAL   OF   ISAIAH  195 

Nippur  before  2000  b.  c.  perhaps  came  to  Palestine  with  the 
early  Babylonian  conquerors  and  traders,  and  remained  in 
the  traditions  of  the  Canaanites,  to  be  adopted  in  turn  by  the 
Israelite  invaders. 

However,  the  probability  that  Isaiah  drew  certain  elements 
of  his  Messianic  poems  from  a  myth  originally  Sumerian,  does 
not  prove  that  he  got  the  figure  of  the  Messiah  himself  from  that 
source.  Indeed,  in  X  it  is  a  god,  Enki,  with  his  consort  (lines 
8,  11)  and  not  a  human  being  who  rules  where  no  beast  harms. 

Nor  can  one  find  traces  of  a  human  Paradise  king  elsewhere 
in  Babylonian  mythology.  Aside  from  this  Sumerian  epic, 
indeed,  but  little  information  concerning  the  Golden  Age  myth 
in  Babylonia  or  Assyria  has  been  preserved.  We  have  in 
Berossos'^  an  account  of  the  antediluvian  monarchs,  the  first  of 
whom,  Cannes,  half  fish  and  half  man,  taught  his  subjects  the 
art  of  writing,  and  various  other  useful  arts,  introduced  laws 
and  land  measurements,  built  cities  and  founded  temples.  This 
creature,  with  a  tail  for  feet,  who  spent  every  night  under  the 
sea,  hardly  afforded  to  Isaiah  the  model  for  the  Messiah.  Gress- 
mann-^  suggests  the  possibility  of  a  connection  between  the 
Adapa  myth*^  and  a  Paradise  king,  but  the  fragments  of  the 
tale  which  have  come  down  to  us  tell  merely  how  Adapa  failed 
to  acquire  immortality.  The  theory  of  his  reign  as  king,  Gress- 
mann  bases  on  the  very  uncertain  identification  of  Adapa  with 
the  second  of  Berossos's  early  kings,  Alaporos,  and  on  an  inscrip- 
tion of  Sennacherib  in  which,  according  to  Gressmann,  the  king 
once  calls  himself  ''the  second  Adapa."  This  inscription^^ 
reads  (1:4) — ''The  lord  of  wisdom  (i.  e.  Ea)  gave  large  under- 
standing, the  double  of  the  leader,  Adapa;  he  granted  large 
intelligence."  There  is,  therefore,  at  present  no  evidence  of 
the  existence  of  a  human  Paradise  king  in  Babylonian 
mythology. 

A  god,  not  a  man,  is  also  the  ruler  in  the  Golden  Age  to  which 
the  Egyptians  looked  back — the  blessed  period  when  Ra  ruled 
the  earth  in  person  before  the  revolt  of  mankind  and  the  god's 

'^Gressmann,  Altorientalische  Texte  und  Bilder  zum  Alien  Testamente 
(translation  by  Ungnad),  pp.  38-39,  Gottmgen,  1905. 

^AJTh.,  1913,  p.  190. 

^  Knudtzon,  Die  El-Amarna  Tafeln,  No.  356,  Leipzig,  1907-15. 

*^Layard,  Inscriptions  in  the  Cuneiform  Character,  p.  38,  London,  1851 
(translation  by  Prof.  G.  A.  Barton). 


196  JOURNAL    OF    BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

departure  for  the  heavenly  regions. ^^  We  have  little  knowledge 
of  the  character  of  Ra's  reign  more  definite  than  that  conveyed 
by  the  frequent  phrase  ''it  was  not  so  since  the  days  of  Ra,"** 
or  the  ending  of  a  hymn  to  Nile,^^  ''Thou  didst  provide  for  us 
that  which  is  needful  that  men  may  live,  even  as  Ra  when  he 
ruled  this  land."  The  two  legends  which  have  survived  in 
fairly  complete  form  {Isis  and  Ea,  and  the  Destruction  of  Man- 
kind) both  deal  with  the  end  of  his  reign  after  he  had  grown 
old  and  feeble.  The  tale  of  the  Winged  Sundisk  begins  ' '  in  the 
363rd  year  of  King  Ra."^®  In  the  Admonitions  of  an  Egyptian 
Sage  translated  by  A.  H.  Gardiner,  there  is  a  fragmentary  pas- 
sage which  Gardiner  interprets  as  a  description  of  Ra's  reign. 
His  translation  is  as  follows  :^^ 

"He  bringeth(  ?)  coolness  upon  that  which  is  hot.  It  is  said: 
he  is  the  herdsman  of  mankind.  No  evil  is  in  his  heart.  When 
his  herds  are  few,  he  passes  the  day  to  gather  them  together, 
their  hearts  being  on  fire(?)  ...  so  long  as(?)  the  gods  in 
the  midst  thereof  endure(?)  seed  shall  come  forth  (?)  from  the 
women  of  the  people;  none(?)  is  found  on  the  way(?)  a 
fighter  (?)  goes  forth,  that  he(?)  may  destroy  the  wrongs 
that(  ?)  they  have  brought  about.  There  is  no  pilot  ( ?)  in  their 
moment.  Where  is  he(?)  today?  Is  he  sleeping?  Behold  his 
might  is  not  seen. ' ' 

But  even  in  this  passage  there  is  no  suggestion  that  Ra  might 
return  to  earth  or  that  the  blessings  of  his  reign  would  be 
repeated.  We  find,  then,  no  evidence  for  the  Messianic  idea  in 
Egyptian  mythology. 

Gressmann  further  suggests  the  possibility  of  a  Canaanite 
origin  for  the  idea,  and  here  the  absence  of  any  knowledge  of 
Canaanite  mythology  makes  proof  or  refutation  alike  impossible. 
There  is  one  bit  of  legend  preserved  in  Sanchoniathon 's  curious 

^Wiedemann,  Eeligion  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians,  p.  52,  New  York,  1897; 
Zimmermann,  Agyptische  Eeligion,  p.  11,  Paderborn,  1912;  Breasted, 
Development  of  Eeligion  and  Thought  in  Ancient  Egypt,  p.  211,  New  York, 
1909. 

s^Merneptah  inscription,  Israelite  stele,  line  10.  Altorientalische  Texte 
.    .     .,  p.  193. 

«'  Wiedemann,  Eeligion  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians,  p.  147. 

^*'  Wiedemann,  iMd.,  p.  69. 

«'  A.  H.  Gardiner,  Admonitions  of  an  Egyptian  Sage,  11 :  11-12 :  6, 
Leipzig,  1909. 


smith:     the    messianic    ideal    of   ISAIAH  197 


medley,^^  a  tale  of  a  certain  Porus  'Svho  rode  about  on  a  camel, 
kept  watch  of  the  sanctuaries,  and  conferred  benefits  on  the 
children  of  Uranus."     Are  we  to  take  Porus  as  Isaiah's  model? 

Oesterly^^  has  attempted  to  show  that  the  Messianic  ideal  is 
a  myth  originating  within  Israel  itself ,.  independent  of  outside 
influence.  He  would  explain  it  as  a  development  of  the  second 
of  the  three  mythical  ideas  common  to  humanity — the  belief  in 
a  beneficent  power — ^\^^hicll  in  Israel  took  the  form  of  the  Jahveh- 
myth,  paralleled  by  the  ' '  Heilbringer "  in  all  mythologies. 
But  the  expectation  that  an  illustrious  king  (at  least  partly 
human)  should  sit  triumphantly  on  David's  throne  seems  hardly 
a  logical  development  from  an  expectation  that  Jahveh  w^ould 
rule  the  world — especially  among  a  people  who  like  the  Israelites 
did  not  deify  their  heroes  (cf.  the  legends  of  the  patriarchs). 

But  is  the  idea  of  the  Messianic  king  necessarily  mythological  ? 
Gressmann  asserts  positively  that  it  is.  He  finds  in  the  con- 
ception three  consecutive  stages: 

(1)  The  divine  child  bringing  peace  to  Israel  at  birth. 

(2)  The  king  with  divine  epithets  and  functions. 

(3)  The  descendant  of  David  ruling  at  the  end  of  the  world. 

The  first  of  the  three  stages  which  he  names  is  the  only  one 
which  is  necessarily  mythological;  and  the  evidence  for  the 
existence  of  this  belief  in  Israel  is  derived  almost  wholly  from 
the  interpretation  of  Is.  7  as  a  Messianic  prediction.  Modern 
scholars  almost  unanimously  reject  as  entirely  unjustified  any 
such  interpretation  of  the  sign  promised  by  Isaiah  to  Ahaz, 
since  "the  sign  lies  not  ...  in  the  circumstances  of  the 
birth,  but  in  the  chain  of  events  predicted  and  their  association 
with  the  .  .  .  naming  of  the  child.  "®*^  Gressmann 's  chief 
reasons  for  dissenting  from  this  view  are  the  mention  of  milk 
and  honey  in  Is.  7 :  15  "a  striking  parallel  to  the  food  of  Zeus 
in  Crete,  "«i  and  the  use  of  the  word  nd7}^n  Is.  7 :  14.  Prof. 
Barton  has  shown  conclusively®^  that  to  the  Semite  the  phrase 
''milk  and  honey"   had  no  mythological  associations.    ntD'^i^Jl, 

®^  Sanchoniathon,  Phonizische  Geschichte,  $  7;    German  translation,  1837. 
^^Oesterly,  The  Evolution  of  the  Messianic  Idea,  chapters  8,  10,  New 
York,  1908. 

^  Gray,  Isaiah,  p.  124. 

^^  Gressmann,  Der  Ursprung  der  israelitisch-jildischen  Eschatologie,  p.  215. 

^  Article    '  ^  Milk, ' '    Hastings '  Encyclopedia  of  Beligion  and  Ethics. 


198  JOURNAL    OF   BIBLICAL    LITERATURE 

which  carries  none  of  the  significance  of  the  Greek  7rapOevo<s, 
Hebrew  H'^IDD,  may  mean  equally  well  'Hhe  young  woman," 
^ '  a  young  woman, "  or  "  young  women, '  '^^  Hence  Gressmann  's 
argument  for  the  miraculous  character  of  the  child  Immanuel 
falls  to  the  ground. 

The  second  and  third  stages  into  which  he  divides  the  develop- 
ment of  the  idea  are  not  clearly  distinguished  and  may  easily 
be  united  or  put  in  the  reverse  order.  Further  it  is  hardly 
clear  that  the  descendant  of  David  is  not  to  appear  until  the 
end  of  the  world.  Our  evidence  for  dating  most  of  the  Mes- 
sianic passages  is  internal,  and  Gressmann  seems  rather  arbi- 
trary in  assuming  that  a  king  with  divine  epithets  developed 
into  a  descendant  of  David  rather  than  vice  versa. 

Gressmann 's  further  argument  that  the  Messianic  idea  must 
be  of  foreign  origin  because  early  Israel  had  no  king  is  valid 
only  if  it  can  be  proved  that  the  conception  existed  in  Israel 
before  the  establishment  of  the  Israelite  kingdom;  and  such 
proof  is  not  given.  The  two  passages  which  Gressmann  cites  as 
evidence  of  great  antiquity  because  of  the  mention  of  the  ass, 
e.  g.  Zech.  9 :  9  and  Gen.  49 :  11,  may  easily  be  due  to  the  use  of 
the  ass  at  the  coronation  of  Solomon  (I  Kings  1:  33,  38). 

The  earliest  definite  formulation  of  a  Messianic  expectation 
is  found  in  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah.  Is  it  not  possible  to  find 
the  origin  of  the  essential  elements  of  his  figure  of  the  Messiah 
in  history  instead  of  in  mythology  ?  The  J  and  E  sections  of  the 
books  of  Samuel  and  Kings,  which  received  nearly  their  present 
form  in  the  eighth  century,  bear  witness  that  the  reigns  of  Saul, 
of  David,  and  especially  of  Solomon  were  then  being  idealized 
and  thought  of  in  terms  of  the  world  empire  of  Assyria.  A 
study  of  these  stories  reveals,  emphasized  in  them,  those  charac- 
teristics which  Isaiah  portrayed  in  his  ideal  ruler.  Verbal 
identity  we  do  not  find.  Isaiah  was  a  poet  as  well  as  a  prophet, 
and  a  poet  of  great  originality.  He  therefore  clothes  in  new 
words  the  ideas  current  among  his  people. 

1 :  26.    rr'?nn!}D  ^vr'i  n^tr^iM  yps^t:;.    For  d5c^,  cf . 

Ex.  18:12-27  (E),  where  Moses  appoints  rulers  to  judge  the 
people,  also  Num.  25 : 5  (E)  ;  if  Dillmann^*  is  right  in  asserting 

''^Gray,  Isaiah,  pp.  124  f.,  132;  G-K.,  126q  (2d  English  edition,  Oxford, 
1910). 

®*Dillmann,  Der  Prophet  Jesaja,  p.  15,  5th  edition,  Leipzig,  1890. 


SMITH  :     THE    MESSIANIC    IDEAL    OF   ISAIAH  199 

that  the  reference  is  not  pre-Davidic,  cf .  II  Sam.  15 :  2,  4.  For 
l^j;* ,  cf .  II  Sam.  15  :  12 ;  16 :  23  ;  17,  Ahitophel  the  counsellor 
of  David,  and  I  Kings  12 : 6,  8,  13,  the  counsellors  of  Solomon 
contrasted  with  those  of  Rehoboam.  1 :  27,  as  has  been  sug- 
gested, was  perhaps  meant  as  a  contrast  to  Hezekiah's  method 
of  ransoming  Jerusalem  by  gold. 

9  :  3.     pO  DVD  cf .  Judg.  7. 

9 :  4.  a'D12  n^^i:iD  n^^m  -•■■  pXD  ,  cf .  I  Kings  2  :  5  ff., 
Solomon  punishes  Joab  because  "ItJ^K  ID'lJinD  tlDfl^D  *D"T  Jil^l 

v'^jinnjTNi'^wn*!  v:noD. 

9 :  5.  IDDtr-^;^  nitron .  The  root  is  '\1t^  (BDB)  =  ''rise 
in  splendor,"  ''shine."  In  I  Sam.  9  :  16  et  al.,  Saul  is  anointed 
^Di^'^i^yy^h.  1^1  =  "be  conspicuous."  (Was  the  phrase, 
lODC^  ^i^ ,  perhaps  suggested  by  the  description  of  Saul,  I  Sam. 

9 : 2,  D;;n  '?dd  na:i  n'?;^Di  iMtro  ?)  if  the  idea  of  loDt:^ "?}; 

is  the  burden  of  government,  cf .  rather  I  Kings  3 :  9  ff. 

9:5.  r^^V  N'?^,  cf.  Solomon's  request  for  wisdom,  I  Kings 
3:7ff.,  and  also  David's  first  appearance,  I  Sam.  16:18,    J)'21 

"T)D:1  "7^.  niDJI  cf.  I  Sam.  16:18  '^^n  niDJ ,  II  Sam.  1:19, 
David's  lament  for  Saul  and  Jonathan.  For  the  use  of  '^N, 
cf .  the  idea  that  he  who  cursed  a  king  should  die,  II  Sam.  19 :  21, 
Ex.  22 :  28 ;  also  David's  refusal  to  harm  Saul,  I  Sam.  24 :  3-12 ; 
26:6-16,  because  he  is  the  "Lord's  anointed,"  and  II  Sam. 
1 :  21.     Cf .  further  the  use  of  HIDJl  '^N  of  giants  in  Ez.  32 :  21. 

"TiT  ^DN.  For  1}/ ,  "booty,"  cf.  Gen.  49:  27.  Cf.  the  vari- 
ous exploits  of  Saul  and  David,  e.  g.  I  Sam.  30 :  22  ff.,  the  law 
of  the  division  of  spoil,  II  Sam.  12 :  30  ff.,  the  spoil  of  Rabbah. 

Dl^tr  "Itr .  Cf.  the  traditional  character  of  Solomon.  The 
peacefulness  of  his  reign  is  emphasized  chiefly  by  the  redactor, 
but  it  is  also  the  general  view  and  is  implied  by  his  alliance 
with  Hiram,  etc. 

9 :  6.     "in  NDD  ^i^ .     A  common  phrase  in  I  Kings  1,  2,  3. 

inD'^Do  b}; ,  cf .  I  Kings  1 :  46,  n^i^on  n*dd  '^ir  nob^  :it:^^ . 
nnro'^i  nn^v  pn*?  cf .  i  Kings  i :  35,  ^nnv  inx  and  i 
Kings  2 :  24,  ^^j^Dn  ^tTN  nin» . 

np-lVai  0^^D2  cf.  I  Kings  3:9,  Solomon's  request  for 
wisdom  y^b  DID  fO  pDn'?  '^0;^-n^^  D^^b  and  also  I  Kings 
3: 11,  28,  Dfit^D  n)^Vb  ,  :  .  .  i;f2^'7 - 

14 


200  JOURNAL    OF    BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

11:1.     ^^^  i^U?2    cf.    "son  of   Jesse"    for  David,   I   Sam. 
20:27,30;   22:7,8,9;   25:10;   II  Sam.  20:1;   I  Kings  12:16. 
11:2.     nW  mn   cf.  I  Sam.  10:6;    11:6;    16:14. 

nT^^  HMH  mi  cf .  i  Kings  3 : 9, 28. 

n^n'^  n^5n*  cf.  11  Sam.  1 :  14,  I6,  nN")^  fear  to  slay  the  Lord's 
anointed,  and  II  Sam.  6:  9,  ''David  was  afraid  of  Jahveh  that 
day." 

11:3,  4a,  cf.  again  Solomon's  request  for  wisdom. 

11:4b.  V£D  DDCTD  f*nj;-nDm.  was  the  figure  perhaps 
suggested  by  the  narrative  of  I  Kings  2  where  Solomon  by  the 
utterance  of  a  word  causes  the  death  of  his  enemies  ? 

11 :  10b.  W")n*  Dn:i  V'?K  cf .  Hiram  of  Tyre.  The  tale  of 
the  Queen  of  Sheba  perhaps  originated  about  this  time,  since 
we  know  that  in  715  Sargon  took  tribute  from  Saba. 

"na:3  )r\n:?2  nn^n) ,  cf .  II  Sam.  7 :  l  or  perhaps  I  Kings  2  :  10. 

The  picture  of  the  peace  among  the  animals,  drawn  from 
mythology,  is,  of  course,  figurative  ;^^  but  its  appropriateness 
to  describe  a  time  of  prosperity  becomes  obvious  if  we  remember 
how  quickly  disaster  in  war  was  followed  by  ravages  from  wild 
beasts  (cf.  Ex.  23:  29,  30;  II  Kings  17:  25).  Further,  David's 
first  exploits  were  the  slaying  of  lions  and  bears  which  came  to 
devour  the  flock  (I  Sam.  17 :  34-36.     Cf.  Ecclus.  47 :  3) . 

It  must,  however,  be  remembered  that  the  idea  of  having  a 
king  was  borrowed  by  the  Israelites  from  their  Canaanite  neigh- 
bors so  that  their  conception  of  his  nature  and  duties  must  have 
been  largely  Canaanite.  But  the  Canaanites  at  the  time  of  the 
Habiri  invasion  were  just  beginning  to  throw  off  the  rule  of 
Egypt.  Now  the  king  of  Egypt  was  considered  the  ''son  of 
Ea,"  a  title  first  assumed  by  User-k-f,  first  king  of  the  fifth 
dynasty,^^  in  a  very  literal  sense,  and  received  his  divinity  by 
inheritance.  (Cf.  the  reliefs  on  the  temple  of  Hatsepsut  at 
Deir  el-Bahari,  of  Amenophis  III  at  Luxor,  of  Cleopatra  VII 
at  Erment.®^)  During  his  life  the  king  was  called  "the  good 
God"  in  distinction  to  the  heavenly  deities  who  were  called 
"great  Gods,"^^  but  he  bore  the  latter  title  after  death.      He 

">''  W.  E.  Smith,  Prophets  of  Israel,  p.  303. 
^  Budge,  The  Gods  of  the  Egyptians,  p.  329,  London,  1904. 
«^  Zimmermann,  Agyptische  Beligion,  p.  14;    Budge,  ibid.,  p.  329;    Erman, 
Agyptische  Eeligion,  p.  40,  Tubingen,  1885. 
®s  Erman,  iMd.,  p.  39. 


SMITH:     THE   MESSIANIC    IDEAL   OF   ISAIAH  201 

was,  however,  while  living,  so  closely  identified  with  the  sun- 
god  that  his  palace  was  called  ''the  horizon,"  when  he  showed 
himself  "he  rose,"  when  he  died  ''he  set";  and  on  his  head 
he  wore  the  emblem  of  the  sacred  sun  serpent.^^  When  the 
Habiri  entered  Palestine,  the  heretic  king,  Ikhnaten,  was  on  the 
throne  of  Egypt,  but  he  was  still  addressed  by  the  old  titles 
with  the  substitution  of  Aten,  the  sun-disk,  for  Ra.  The  Tell- 
el-Amarna  letters^*^^  are  full  of  phrases  showing  how  entirely 
the  Canaanites  accepted  the  Pharaoh's  claim  to  deity.  "Sun" 
or  "son  of  the  sun"  he  is  of  course  called  times  without  num- 
ber, e.  g.  49:1,  3;  53:1;  84:1,  30;  147:5,  6,  52;  211:16. 
Namiawaza  says  (195 :  8  ff.)  :  "At  the  feet  of  the  king  my  lord, 
the  sun,  the  message  (?)  from  the  mornings  and  the  evenings 
.  .  .  The  lord  is  the  Sun  in  the  Heaven,  and  as  for  the  coming 
out  of  the  sun  from  the  heaven  so  wait  the  servants  for  the  com- 
ing out  of  the  words  from  the  mouth  of  their  Lord. ' '  In  292 : 
8  ff .  Addudani  says :  "I  have  looked  here  and  I  have  looked 
there,  but  there  is  no  light.  I  have  looked  towards  the  king  my 
Lord,  and  there  is  the  light."  After  Egypt  abandoned  Pales- 
tine, the  Canaanites  would  naturally  transfer  these  epithets  to 
their  own  petty  kings,  and  thus  this  mode  of  thought  would  be 
familiar  to  Israel.  Indeed,  51,  a  letter  from  Addu-Nirari,  seems 
to  show  that  the  very  ceremony  of  anointing  which  gave  Saul 
the  spirit  of  Jahveh,  was  introduced  into  Canaan  by  Thothmes 
III.  "Behold  as  Manah-bi-i.-ia  (i.  e.  Thothmes  III),  king  of 
Egypt,  thy  grandfather  (T)a(ku),  my  grandfather,  in  Nuhasse 
made  king,  and  oil  on  his  head  put ;  for  he  thus  spoke,  that  one 
whom  the  king  of  Egypt  makes  king,  and  on  (whose  head  he 
oil)  has  put  shall  no  one  overthrow.  "^^^ 

^^  Erman,  itid.,  p.  40. 

^*^  Eeferences  are  made  to  the  edition  of  Knudtzon,  Die  El-Amarna  Tafeln, 
Leipzig,  1907-15. 

^*^  Contrary  to  this  view  is  the  fact  that  anointing  with  animal  fat  was 
among  the  primitive  Semites  a  necessary  part  of  the  sacrificial  customs. 
The  agricultural  Semites  modified  the  practice  by  burning  the  fat  of  the 
sacrifice  and  using  vegetable  fat  for  anointing.  Among  all  Semites  anoint- 
ing was  practiced  at  festivals,  and  in  connection  with  the  priesthood. 
Sacred  stones  and  images  were  also  anointed  with  oil  as  an  act  of  worship 
(cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  Religion  of  the  Semites,  pp.  232,  383).  However,  the 
particular  significance  of  the  rite  in  connection  with  the  office  of  king  may 
well  have  originated  in  Egypt.     35:  24;    34:  47,  50;    1:  95,  testify  to  the 


202  JOURNAL   OP   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

May  we  not,  therefore,  see  in  Isaiah's  shining  light  (9:1)  an 
echo  of  the  courtly  phrases  of  Addudani  and  his  fellows?  And 
for  11 :  4b,  shall  we  not  compare  the  appeal  from  the  city  of 
Irkata,  100 :  34  f.,  ''may  the  breath  of  the  king  not  depart  from 
us.  We  have  shut  the  city  gate  until  the  breath  of  the  king 
come  to  us. "  ?  Cf .  also  141 :  14  ff. ;  145  :  19 ;  195  :  19  f .  And 
again,  Abimilki  's  eulogy  of  the  Pharaoh  ( 147 :  5 )  suggests  Is. 
9:7,  "  My  lord  is  the  sun  .  .  .  He  it  is  who  makes  alive  by 
his  good  .  .  .  who  establishes  the  whole  land  in  rest  through 
the  might  of  the  hand.''  Again  the  king  of  Egypt  like  Isaiah's 
Messiah  can  judge  rightly  without  hearing ;  cf .  with  Is.  11 :  3, 
119:36  "is  no  man  who  has  spoken  my  right  before  the  king, 
my  lord.     But  my  right  the  king  knows." 

Further,  since  Isaiah  was  writing  in  the  period  of  Assyrian 
supremacy,  the  claims  and  titles  of  the  Assyrian  kings  must 
have  been  as  familiar  to  him  as  those  of  the  Davidic  dynasty 
in  Jerusalem.  The  description  and  names  of  the  child  (Is. 
9:6-7)  are  by  no  means  a  translation  of  the  Assyrian  epithets, 
but  there  is  a  similarity  undoubtedly  intentional,  between  the 
effect  of  the  whole  and  the  grandiloquent  beginnings  of  many 
Assyrian  inscriptions.  Compare  for  example  that  of  Shalman- 
ezer  II  {KB.,  I,  p.  153),  "Shalmanezer  II,  king  of  hosts,  the 
prince,  the  priest  of  Ashur,  the  mighty  king,  .  . "  .  the  sun 
of  the  hosts,  who  subdues  all  lands,  the  king,  the  honor er  of  the 
Gods,  the  darling  of  Bel,  the  officer  of  Ashur,  the  mighty,  the 
exalted  prince,  who  finds  ways  and  paths,  treads  down  the  ends 
of  the  hills,  and  of  all  the  mountains,  who  receives  tribute  and 
gifts  of  all  the  regions  of  the  world  (cf.  Is.  11 :  lOab),  who  opens 
paths  everywhere,  before  whose  mighty  battle  storm  the  regions 
of  the  world  stoop  .  .  .  the  heroic,  strong  one  (cf.  1")DJl  '?N) 
...    the  splendid  sprout  of  Takulti-Ninib. " 

But  in  spite  of  their  epithets  the  kings  of  Assyria  are  only 
mortal.  They  often  claim  to  have  been  designated  as  king  by 
the  gods  before  birth:  "I  am  Ashur-bani-pal  .  .  .  whose 
name  Ashur  and  Sin,  the  possessor  of  the  king's  cap(?),  since 
distant  days,  had  called  to  rule,  and  whom  they  in  his  mother's 

importance  of  gifts  of  olive  oil  to  the  Pharaoh  (Knudtzon,  notes  on  51) 
and  the  phraseology  of  Addn-Nirari 's  letter  suggests  that  the  Egyptians 
had  transferred  their  own  custom  to  Nuhasse,  with  the  necessary  explana- 
tion of  its  meaning. 


SMITH:     THE   MESSIANIC   IDEAL   OF   ISAIAH  203 

womb  had  established  to  the  shepherding  over  Assyria"  {KB., 
II,  p.  153).     But  the  birth  itself  is  natural.     The  king  may  even 
call  a  divinity  mother  or  father,   cf.  the  hymn  of  Gudea  of 
Lagash  to  Bau,  dating  from  about  2450  b.  c.  :^^- 
' '  I  have  no  mother — thou  art  my  mother ; 

I  have  no  father — thou  art  my  father. 

My  father    ...    in  a  holy  place  thou  hast  produced  me, 

Goddess  Bau,  thou  knowest  what  is  good. 

Thou  hast  given  me  the  breath  of  life. 

Under  the  protection  of  my  mother,  in  thy  shadow 

I  will  reverently  dwell." 

But  since  the  goddess  is  both  mother  and  father,  the  hymn  can 
hardly  be  meant  literally.  The  story  of  the  birth  of  Sargon 
cannot  be  taken  as  evidence  for  the  claim  of  divine  parentage, 
since  the  correct  translation  is  apparently  ''my  mother  was 
poor. '  '^^^  Some  of  the  earliest  kings,  e.  g.  Sargon  of  Agade  and 
his  son  Xaram-Sin  have  their  names  written  with  the  sign  for 
deity.^*^*  Naram-Sin  is  portrayed  with  upturned  horns  on  his 
head,  the  symbol  of  deity,^^^  and  on  a  monument  of  Ur-Nina 
the  ruler  himself  offers  a  libation  j^*^^  the  names  of  Dungi,  Bur- 
Sin,  and  Gimil-Sin  of  the  dynasty  of  Ur  were  also  written  with 
the  sign  of  deity,^^"  but  the  later  kings  require  a  priest  even  to 
bring  them  into  the  presence  of  God.  There  is  no  evidence  for 
even  a  partially  divine  character  of  kings  after  the  time  of  the 
Kassite  kings  of  Babylon.^*^^ 

The  kings  are,  however,  especially  favored  by  the  Gods,  and 
under  their  especial  protection.  Compare  with  Is.  11 : 2  such 
claims  as  the  following  made  by  Nebuchadrezzar,  presumably 

^**  Jastro^,  The  Civilization  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  p.  465,  Philadel- 
phia, 1915. 

^"^  AltorientaliscTie  Texte    ... 

^°*Jastrow,  Aspects  of  Beligious  Belief  and  Practice  in  Babylonia  and 
Assyria,  p.  19,  New  York,  1911. 

^"  Jastrow,  Aspects    .    .    .,  p.  23,  Plate  8. 

^"  Jastrow,  The  Civilization    .     .     .,  p.  271. 

^'"G.  A.  Barton,  JAOS.,  XXXIV,  p.  318,  and  Haverford  Collection  of 
Cuneiform  Tablets,  II,  p.  58,  Xo.  278,  Philadelphia,  1914. 

^'^  Kugler,  Sternlcunde  und  Sterndienst  in  Babel,  II,  1,  pp.  144-149, 
Miinster,  1907-10,  makes  the  last  divine  king  Hammurabi,  but  cf.  Hilprecht, 
Babylonian  Expedition  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Series  A,  XX, 
p.  52. 


204  JOURNAL    OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

imitating  his  predecessors:  ''King  of  Babylon  .  .  .  the 
exalted  who  understands  the  expression  of  the  lawful  inclination 
of  the  great  Gods"  {KB.,  111:2,  p.  39)  ;  and  with  11:5,  this 
from  the  inscription  of  Merodach-Baladan :  "this  is  the  ruler 
who  brings  together  the  injured,  a  just  sceptre,  a  staff  whicli 
leads  aright  the  men  intrusted  to  his  hand"  {KB.,  111:1,  p. 
185).  There  are  parallels  also  for  the  "shoot"  of  Jesse,  cf. 
"the  sprout  of  Bel-kapkap,  the  former  king  who  still  before 
the  ancient  time  of  the  kingdom  of  Sulilu  ruled"  {KB.,  I,  p. 
191),  cf.  alsoZ^.,  I,  p.  153. 

Since,  then,  the  epithets  of  the  king  predicted  by  Isaiah  are 
only  those  which  could  be  applied  to  a  powerful  king  of  Israel 
sitting  on  the  throne  in  Jerusalem  in  Isaiah's  time,  it  is  hardly 
fair  to  insist  that  the  figure  of  the  king  is  mythological  because 
certain  accompaniments  of  his  reign  are  described  in  terms 
drawn  from  mythology.  There  is  in  Isaiah's  thought  no  room 
for  a  supernatural  monarch,  but  as  has  been  shown,  his  thought 
requires  to  make  it  logically  complete,  the  picture  of  the  restora- 
tion of  the  days  of  David  and  Solomon  as  Isaiah  understood 
them. 

For  the  prediction  of  an  actual  (not  a  mythical)  king  by  a 
prophet  we  have  at  least  one  striking  parallel  in  the  literature 
of  Egypt.  A  papyrus,  No.  1116  of  the  Hermitage  of  Petrograd, 
dating  from  about  the  middle  of  the  XIX  dynasty  (two  other 
copies  of  part  of  the  contents  are  preserved ),^^®  tells  a  tale  of 
the  prophecy  spoken  by  a  priest  in  the  presence  of  king  Snefru 
(c.  2950  B.  c).  The  prophecy  runs  as  follows  (according  to 
Sayce  and  Eanke)  :  "A  king  shall  come  from  the  South,  Ameni, 
the  truth  declaring,  by  name.  He  shall  be  a  son  of  a  woman  of 
Nubia  and  will  be  born  in  the  inner  part  of  Nechen  (the  old 
capital  of  Upper  Egypt).  He  shall  assume  the  crown  of  Upper 
Egypt,  and  put  upon  himself  the  Lower  Egypt  crown.  He  shall 
unite  the  double  crown  and  make  at  peace  Horus  and  Set  in  love. 
The  people  of  the  age  of  the  son  of  man  shall  rejoice  and  estab- 
lish his  name  for  all  eternity.  They  shall  be  removed  far  from 
evil  and  the  wicked  shall  humble  their  mouths  for  fear  of  him. 
The  Asiatics  shall  fall  before  his  blows,  the  Libyans  before  his 

'"*  Sayce,  The  Beligion  of  Ancient  Egypt  and  Babylon,  p.  248,  Edinburgh, 
1903.  Golenischeff,  in  Eecueil  de  Travaux,  XV,  pp.  88,  89;  Altorientalische 
Texte  .  .  .,  pp.  204  ft.  (translation  by  Eanke).  Compare  also  the  trans- 
lation by  Gardiner,  in  Jour.  Eg.  Arch.,  April,  1914. 


SMITH  :     THE    MESSIANIC    IDEAL    OP    ISAIAH  205 

flame,  the  enemy  before  the  rage  of  his  .  .  .  and  the  rebels 
before  his  strength.  The  royal  serpent  on  his  brow  shall  pacify 
the  revolted.  A  wall  shall  be  built,  even  that  of  the  prince,  that 
the  Asiatics  may  no  more  enter  into  Egypt.  They  ask  for  water 
.  .  .  according  to  the  manner  of  ...  in  order  to  give  drink 
to  their  cattle.  The  truth  will  again  come  to  its  place,  while  the 
lie  .  .  .  overthrown.  He  rejoices  over  it,  he  who  shall  see, 
who  shall  be  in  the  train  of  the  king.  A  wise  man  will  sprinkle 
water  for  me  when  he  sees  that  which  I  have  said  come  to  pass. ' ' 
There  is  in  this  prophecy  a  possible  implication  that  the  king  to 
come  is  a  miraculous  being,  and  so  Sayce  interpreted  it.  But 
Ranke,  following  a  suggestion  of  Eduard  Meyer,  points  out  that 
Ameni  is  the  abbreviated  form  of  Amen-em-het,  and  that  the 
prophecy  may  be  referred  to  Amenemhet  I,  the  founder  of  the 
XII  dynasty.  The  epithet,  ''son  of  a  man,"  applied  to  the  king 
is,  according  to  Ranke,  the  regular  expression  for  ' '  a  man  of  noble 
birth"  in  distinction  to  the  son  of  an  unknown  father.  The 
"prince's  wall,"  which  is  referred  to  also  in  the  Romance  of 
Sinuhit  and  was  therefore  in  existence  about  1970,  is  the  wall 
built  on  the  Eastern  frontier  to  keep  the  Bedoui  out  of  Egypt. 
One  of  the  inscriptions  of  Amenemhet  quoted  by  Breasted,^^^ 
makes  for  him  somewhat  the  same  claim  as  does  the  prophecy, 
"binding  of  the  chiefs  of  the  Two  Lands,  capturing  the  South 
and  the  Northland,  the  foreign  countries  and  the  two  regions, 
the  Nine  Bows  and  the  Two  Lands."  Plainly,  therefore,  Egyp- 
tians of  a  later  day  thought  that  this  first  of  the  great  kings  of 
the  South  had  been  predicted  nearly  a  thousand  years  before  his 
birth.  Such  a  tale  could  originate  only  among  a  people  who 
were  accustomed  to  hear  predictions  of  good  to  occur  in  the 
reigns  of  future  human  kings.  Thus  although  we  can  find  in 
Egyptian  thought  no  parallel  for  the  expectation  of  a  mytho- 
logical Hebrew  Messiah,  we  do  find  there  the  same  expectation 
of  an  ideal  human  king. 


PRE-EXILIC  MESSIANIC  EXPECTATIONS 

One  argument  against  the  genuineness  of  the  Messianic  pas- 
sages in  Isaiah  should  be  considered  more  fully — namely  that 
the  specific  expectation  of  an  ideal  Davidic  king  did  not  originate 

"°  Breasted,  A  History  of  Egypt,  p.  151,  New  York,  1905. 


206  JOURNAL    OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

until  there  was  no  longer  an  actual  Davidic  king  upon  the 
throne.^^^ 

This  view  is  by  no  means  universally  accepted.  Sellin^^^ 
asserts,  with  Gressmann,  that  the  idea  of  a  Messiah  is  an  early 
Semitic  ideal,  older  than  the  Hebrew  monarchy.  The  arguments 
drawn  from  mythology  have  already  been  considered,  but  Sellin 
discusses  in  much  greater  detail  than  Gressmann  the  evidence 
afforded  by  the  early  Hebrew  literature.  In  the  early  J  stories 
of  the  patriarchs  there  are  certainly  expressions  of  an  expecta- 
tion of  a  glorious  future  for  the  Hebrew  nation,  cf .  Gen.  9 :  25-27, 
the  blessing  of  Shem ;  Gen.  12 : 2,  the  promise  to  Abraham ; 
Gen.  28 :  14,  the  promise  to  Jacob ;  and  from  J  and  E,  Gen. 
27:27-29,  Isaac's  blessing  to  Jacob.  (Gen.  22:17;  26:4, 
which  Sellin  also  cites  are  the  work  of  E^.)^^^  Sellin  is 
undoubtedly  correct  in  assuming  that  these  stories  are  much  older 
than  the  time  of  the  composition  of  the  J  document,  but  none 
of  these  passages  makes  any  specific  mention  of  an  individual 
ruler;  and  the  description  of  the  blessing  is  in  all  cases  too 
general  in  phraseology  to  admit  many  deductions.  Sellin 's 
inference  that  the  inclusion  of  ''all  the  world"  proves  the 
mythological  and  non-Israelite  origin  of  the  idea  is  hardly 
admissible.  Would  a  comparison  with  the  folk-lore  of  any  other 
nation  lead  us  to  expect  Gen.  12:2  to  read  *'in  thee  shall  be 
blessed  those  nations  whose  territories  border  on  thine ' '  1  These 
passages  therefore  prove  nothing  beyond  the  existence  of  the 
very  natural  belief  that  Jahveh  would  prosper  His  people. 
(Judg.  5:31  is  a  less  positive  expression  of  the  same  idea.) 

There  are  certain  passages  'in  the  Pentateuch  which  may  be 
interpreted  as  predictions  of  an  individual,  e.  g.  Gen.  49 :  22-26, 
the  blessing  of  Joseph ;  Gen.  49 : 9-12,  the  blessing  of  Judah ; 
Num.  24:17-20,  Balaam's  blessing  upon  Jacob  (since  Deut. 
33 :  13-16  is  based  upon  Gen.  49 :  22-26  and  is  less  definite,  it 
needs  no  separate  consideration).  Sellin  asserts  that  these  pas- 
sages portray  in  eschatological  colors  the  rescue  of  the  Israelites 
by  an  individual.  Now  Gen.  49  is  generally  admitted  to  contain 
elements  of  different  dates,^^*  which  were  combined  at  least  at 

^^  Marti,  Das  DodeTcapropheton  (Mi.  5:  15),  Tiibingen,  1903-04. 
"2  Sellin,  Die  israelitisch-jMiscJie  Heilandserwartung,  Berlin,  1909. 
"^  Carpenter  and  Harford-Battersby,  The  Eexateuch,  London,  1900. 
^^* Carpenter  and  Harford-Battersby,  ibid.;    Skinner,    ^'Genesis"     {Int. 
Crit.  Com.),  1910. 


SMITH:     THE    MESSIANIC    IDEAL   OF   ISAIAH  207 

late  as  the  reign  of  David,  so  that  it  furnishes  no  certain  evi- 
dence for  the  existence  of  conceptions  earlier  than  the  monarchy. 
Furthermore,  the  text  of  w.  22-26  is  extremely  corrupt;  the 
only  possible  reference  to  an  individual  is  v.  24cd,  but  *'the 
mighty  one  of  Jacob ' '  is  obviously  Jahveh,  cf .  v.  25  and  Is. 
1 :  24 ;  49  :  26,  so  that  the  parallelism  requires  the  last  clause  also 
to  refer  to  Jahveh.  Skinner^^^  reads  with  ^E^  "through 
the  name  of  the  shepherd  of  the  Israel-Stone";  Mitchell,^^*' 
*  * .  .  .  shepherd  of  Israel  thy  father. ' '  Vv.  9-12  were  evi- 
dently written  after  the  rule  of  David  had  been  firmly  estab- 
lished (since  the  continuance  of  something  non-existent  is  hardly 
an  admissible  prediction).  The  Messianic  interpretation  of  the 
term,  Shiloh,  is  first  given  in  the  Talmud^^^  as  a  parallel  to 
pr,  Ps.  72 :  2 ;  nrjn,  Jer.  16  :  13  et  al.,  fanciful  interpretations 
devised  as  compliments  to  various  rabbis.  The  word  was  evi- 
dently never  intended  as  a  proper  name.  Many  emendations 
on  the  basis  of  the  versions  have  been  suggested,  i.  e.  ilb^i2 
nt?.  i7  IC'N.  D^tr.  The  parallelism  of  the  following  clause 
could  be  kept  by  reading  *'?tJ^  +  n_  locale^^^  "until  he  enters 
into  peace  and  his  is  the  obedience  of  the  nations,"  cf.  ^^t^O 
II  Sam.  3 :  27 ;  n*?'tJ^  would  then  arise  by  transposition,  and  the 
rarity  of  the  term  ^^^  would  hinder  the  correction  of  the  mis- 
take. In  any  case  the  passage  is  clearly  a  vaUcinium  ex  event u 
concerning  the  rise  of  the  Davidic  dynasty  coupled  with  the 
prediction  of  its  long  continuance.  The  various  oracles  of 
Balaam  are  best  explained  as  composed  at  the  same  time  as 
Gen.  49  and  for  a  similar  purpose,  although  the  story  in  which 
they  are  inserted  is  probably  much  older.  The  monarchy  is 
presupposed,  and  the  mention  of  both  Edom  and  Moab  fits  best 
the  reign  of  David.^^^  For  the  use  of  the  term  "star"  cf.  Is. 
14 :  12,  Ez.  32 :  7.  Sellin  proposes  to  supplement  the  vague- 
ness of  these  prophecies  by  deducing  the  character  of  the 
expected  rescuer  from  the  common  attributes  of  the  heroes  in 
the  book  of  Judges,  but  neither  miraculous  birth  (cf.  Gideon, 

"'Skinner,  iMd. 

"«H.  G.  Mitchell,  Genesis  (B.H.S.),  1909. 
"^  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy. 
"« G-K  90  a-h. 

"''G.   B.    Gray,   Numhers    (Int.    Grit.    Com.),    1903;     Baentseh,    Exodus, 
Leviticus,  Numeri,  Gottingen,  1903;     Holzinger,  Numeri,  Tubingen,  1903. 


208  JOURNAL    OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

Jephthah)  nor  phenomenal  physical  strength  (cf.  Deborah) 
seems  to  be  a  necessary  characteristic  of  these  heroes. 

Thus  the  Hebrew  literature  before  the  time  of  the  literary 
prophets  gives  evidence  only  for  an  expectation  of  national  pros- 
perity, and  a  hope  of  the  long  continuance  of  the  ruling  dynasty. 
Amos,  the  first  of  the  prophets,  denied  the  possibility  of  the  ful- 
filment of  even  this  hope,  for  Am.  9 :  11-15  presupposes  the  exile 
(v.  14)  and  is  also  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  rest  of  the 
prophet's  teaching.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  impossible  to  con- 
ceive the  message  of  Hosea  without  some  element  of  hope  for 
the  future.  He  pleaded  eloquently  for  a  return  of  the  nation 
to  the  loving  worship  of  Jahveh,  and  such  phrases  as  2:2; 
10 :  12 ;  11 : 1,  3,  imply  that  if  Israel  returned,  there  would  be 
forgiveness  and  renewal  of  favor  on  the  part  of  Jahveh.  How 
definite  was  Hosea 's  expression  of  this  future  hope  is  less  easily 
determined  since  many  passages  in  the  book  are  either  post-exilic 
or  have  suffered  a  post-exilic  revision,  e.  g.  11 :  9-11 ;  14 :  4-9.^^^ 
But  2 :  14-23 ;  3:1-5  are  as  a  whole  consistent  with  Hosea 's 
phraseology  and  thought.  The  definite  denunciation  of  Ba'al 
worship  (2 :  16,  17)  and  the  lack  of  reference  to  any  return  from 
exile  prove  2: 16,  17  at  least  earlier  than  586,  and  the  ''pillar" 
and  "teraphim"  (3:4)  argue  for  the  pre-Deuteronomic  char- 
acter of  chapter  3.  But  since  a  pre-exilic  date  for  the  section 
as  a  whole  does  not  exclude  the  probability  of  post-exilic  glosses, 
it  is  unsafe  to  lay  much  weight  on  the  reference  to  the  covenant 
with  the  beasts  (v.  18),  or  to  assert  that  "David  their  king" 
(3:5b)  proves  that  a  re-union  of  Israel  and  Judah  under  a 
Davidic  king  formed  a  part  of  Hosea 's  hope  for  the  future. 
Thus  we  have  no  certain  evidence  that  there  existed  before 
Isaiah  any  hope  for  the  future  of  Israel  more  definite  than  that 
the  Israelite  nation  was  destined  by  Jahveh  for  prosperity,  and 
that  long  continuance  had  been  predicted  for  the  dynasty  of 
David. 

Neither  is  it  clear  that  Isaiah 's  contemporary,  Micah,  had  any 
expectation  of  a  Messiah.^^i  ^[  4.7  contains  little  or  nothing 
which  can  be  the  work  of  Micah ;   while  Mi.  2 :  12-13,  the  only 

^-"Harper,  Amos  and  Hosea;  J.  M.  P.  Smith,  Amos,  Hosea,  and  Micah; 
Marti,  Das  DodeT{apropheto7i. 

^2' J.  M.  P.  Smith,  Amos,  Hosea  and  Micah;  and  ^' Micah,  Zephaniah" 
.     .     .     (Int.  Crit.  Com.) ;    Marti,  Das  DodeMpropheton. 


SMITH:     THE   MESSIANIC   IDEAL   OF   ISAIAH  209 

hopeful  passage  in  the  first  three  chapters,  presupposes  the 
exile.  There  is,  however,  a  possibility  that  some  part  of  Mi. 
5:2-6  may  have  been  the  work  either  of  Mieah  or  of  some 
unknown  contemporary.  The  text  is  corrupt  and  the  passage  is 
obviously  not  a  unit  since  it  speaks  of  one  leader  and  then  of 
several;  but  the  definite  mention  of  Assyria  (w.  5b,  6)  as  a 
conquering  world  power  links  the  passage  with  the  period  of 
Isaiah  and  Micah.^^a  Mi.  5  :  2  ff.  may  be  an  echo  of  the  Messianic 
hopes  of  Isaiah,  although  again  the  uncertainty  is  too  great  to 
warrant  taking  the  parallel  as  evidence  for  the  pre-exilic  date 
of  the  Isaiah  passages. 

There  is  still  to  be  considered  whether  there  is  any  trace  of 
the  influence  of  Isaiah's  ideal  on  the  age  immediately  following 
the  work  of  the  prophet.  II  Sam.  7 :  11-16  is  one  of  the  most 
definite  statements  in  the  Old  Testament  of'  the  permanence  of 

"^  The  statement  generally  made  (H.  G.  Mitchell,  ^'Haggai,  Zechariah 
.  .  .'^  Int.  Crit.  Com.),  that  "Assyria"  was  used  by  post-exilic  writers 
as  a  name  for  any  world  power  threatening  Israel  is  not  borne  out  by  an 
examination  of  the  passages.  In  Ez.  31:  3,  "ni^X  ,is  not  used  for  Egypt, 
but  is  a  copyist's  error  for  IIB^J^n  (Bertholet,  HezeJciel,  p.  160).  Ezra 
6:  22  probably  refers  to  a  Persian  satrap  of  Assyria  who  bore  a  courtesy 
title  similar  to  Zerubbabel's  (Batten,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  pp.  153,  154). 
The  use  of  "Babylon''  for  Persia,  Ezra  5:  13;  Neh.  13:  6,  which  Mitchell 
gives  as  parallel,  is  in  both  passages  due  to  textual  corruption,  since  Ezra 
5:  13  should  be  read  according  to  the  text  of  Esdras  "in  the  first  year 
that  Cyrus  ruled  over  the  country  of  Babylon"  and  Neh.  13:6  should 
read,  parallel  to  Neh.  2:  1,  simply  "the  king"  (Batten,  iMd.).  In  II 
Kings  23:  29;  Is.  10:  24;  30:  31-33;  Jer.  2:  18;  Ps.  83:  8,  the  Assyrian 
empire  gives  the  better  sense.  In  most  of  the  other  passages  the  term  is 
used  of  a  geographical  not  a  political  division,  e.  g.  Is.  11:  11,  16,  where 
it  is  parallel  to  Elam,  Gush,  etc.;  Is.  27:13;  Lam.  5:6.  In  Is.  52:4 
"Assyria"  may  be  taken  as  a  historical  reference,  parallel  to  the  sojourn 
in  Egypt.  Zech.  10 :  10-12  refers  specifically  to  Ephraim  so  that  the  return 
should  naturally  be  from  Assyria.  This  leaves  unaccounted  for  only  Is. 
19:  23-25;  but  if  these  verses  are  a  continuation  of  19:  19-22,  the  men- 
tion of  the  altar  in  Egypt  and  the  pillar  suggests  a  pre-Deuteronomic  date; 
while  if  they  are  a  later  addition,  Assyria  may  have  been  substituted  for 
the  original  name  from  20:  1. 

Zech.  10:  10-12  dates  from  the  Greek  period.  It  is  therefore  possible 
that  in  this  passage,  and  perhaps  also  in  Is.  19:  23-25,  if  that  is  late, 
"Assyria"  is  used  of  the  Seleucid  kingdom  of  Syria,  a  confusion  of 
terms  exactly  parallel  to  that  in  Herodotus  {Enc.  Bib.,  article  "Syria," 
$  1).  Such  a  use,  however,  would  give  no  support  for  the  interpretation 
of    "Assyria"   as  identical  with  Babylon  or    "any  enemy  of  Israel." 


210  JOURNAL    OF    BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

the  Davidic  dynasty  and  of  Jahveh's  especial  favor  for  David's 
descendants.  The  section  in  its  present  form  shows  plainly  its 
Deuteronomic  character,  and  is  probably  exilic, -but  the  present 
form  of  the  passage  is  clearly  not  original.^^^  The  whole  point 
of  the  original  oracle  (omitting  v.  13)  was  that  David  should 
not  build  Jahveh  a  house,  but  that  Jahveh  would  make  David 
a  house.  Obviously  this  section  which  disapproves  of  the  build- 
ing of  the  temple  is  pre-Deuteronomic  and  was  probably  written 
in  the  early  part  of  the  seventh  century, — a  result  of  the  national 
enthusiasm  over  the  deliverance  of  Jerusalem  from  Sennacherib. 
Vv.  9,  14,  15a  especially  emphasize  the  peculiarly  close  relation 
between  the  king  and  Jahveh. 

The  section  in  Deuteronomy  17 :  14-20  which  describes  the 
duties  of  the  king,  emphasizes  Isaiah's  ideal  of  right  judgment 
and  justice,  and  agrees  with  him  in  disapproval  of  intercourse 
with  Egypt.  If  the  king  fulfills  this  Deuteronomic  law,  he  and 
his  children  shall  prolong  their  days  in  the  kingdom.  Thus  in 
spite  of  the  discouragement  caused  by  the  reactionary  reign  of 
Manasseh,  traces  of  -Isaiah 's  ideal  king  may  be  found  in  the  law 
book  of  his  followers. 

The  only  other  description  of  an  ideal  king  which  is  possibly 
pre-exilic  is  Jer.  23:5-7  (parallel  to  Jer.  33:14-22).  For  this 
passage  a  terminus  ad  quern  is  supplied  by  Zech.  3:8;  6 :  12, 
which  certainly  depend  upon  it ;  for  the  abrupt  introduction  of 
the  title  *' Branch"  implies  a  previous  and  more  explicit  use 
of  the  term/-*  The  passage,  Jer.  23 : 5-7,  is  therefore  either 
exilic  or  pre-exilic.  CornilP^^  argues  convincingly  for  Jere- 
miah's authorship  of  at  least  w.  5,  6.  The  passage  is  entirely 
ethical;  it  contains  nothing  of  either  war  or  politics.  The 
expectation  of  help  for  Israel  and  Judah  is  characteristic  of 
Jeremiah  (cf.  Jer.  3  :  6  ff.) .  The  decisive  argument  is  the  use  of 
the  name  UplV  iDtl''',  parallel  to  the  name  of  the  reigning  king, 
npll?.    Zedekiah  was  always  pitied  rather  than  blamed  by  the 

1--^  Kennedy,  ''I  and  II  Samuel"  (New  Century  Bible),  1905;  H.  P. 
Smith,  ''Samuel"  (Int.  Crit.  Com.),  1899;  Budde,  Die  BUcher  Samuel, 
Tiibingen,  1902. 

^-* Mitchell,  ''Haggai,  Zechariah  .  .  .^'  (Int.  Crit.  Com.),  1912;  Cor- 
nill,  Jeremia,  Leipzig,  1905;  Duhm,  Jeremias,  Tiibingen,  1907;  Giese- 
breeht,  Jeremias,  Gottingen,  1907. 

^25  CorniU,  ibid.,  pp.  264,  265. 


SMITH:     THE   MESSIANIC   IDEAL   OP   ISAIAH  211 

prophet  whose  condemnation  was  for  the  nobles  who  influenced 
him  for  evil  (cf.  Jer.  2:8;  10:21;  23:1,  2).  Thus  Jer.  23: 
1,  2,  5,  6  gives  Jeremiah's  verdict  on  Zedekiah,  parallel  to  those 
on  his  predecessors.  Jeremiah  could  not  praise  Zedekiah  him- 
self, but  he  uses  intentionally  a  similar  name  for  the  ideal  king 
who  is  to  come.  The  idea  of  a  perfect  king  is  evidently  not 
being  expressed  for  the  first  time  in  this  passage,  it  is  introduced 
much  too  casually.  Further  as  Cornill  says,^^^  Ezekiel  knew 
the  Messianic  ideal  and  from  Ez.  17:22-24;  34:23,  24,  it  is 
clear  that  he  did  not  create  it.  Hence  it  must  have  originated 
before  the  exile.  Also  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  the  assurances 
of  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  or  for  the  brilliant  eschatological  pic- 
tures of  a  still  later  time  if  there  had  been  no  definite  Messianic 
prediction  by  the  accredited  prophets  of  the  pre-exilic  period. 
Neither  the  appointment  of  Zerubbabel  as  governor  of  Jerusalem, 
nor  any  later  event  offers  in  itself  a  probable  origin  for  a  Mes- 
sianic hope,  while  the  enduring  confidence  in  the  ultimate  real- 
ization of  such  a  hope  implies  a  definite  statement  of  it  by 
prophets  who  had  been  accepted  as  inspired  by  Jahveh. 


CONCLUSION 

In  conclusion:  the  expectation  of  an  ideal  king  ruling  in 
Jerusalem  is  a  natural  outgrowth  of  the  historical  situation  at 
the  end  of  Hezekiah's  reign,  since  the  deliverance  of  Jerusalem 
from  Sennacherib  inspired  unlimited  confidence  both  in  the 
power  of  Jahveh,  and  in  His  determination  to  protect  His  chosen 
people.  A  natural  accompaniment  of  this  confidence  was  an 
expectation  of  a  return  of  the  power  and  prosperity  of  the 
already  idealized  days  of  the  United  Kingdom.  Hezekiah  was 
obviously  incapable  of  being  the  leader  of  such  a  restoration; 
but  Jahveh  would  provide  a  successor  who  should  possess  the 
necessary  qualifications. 

Without  the  Messianic  passages,  the  thought  of  Isaiah  is 
incomplete.  The  destruction  which  he  prophesied  was  not  final, 
since  the  account  of  his  prophecy  that  the  city  of  Jerusalem 
should  remain  untaken  must  have  some  basis  in  fact,  and  some 
of  the  passages  which  predict  the  punishment  of  Assyria  are 

^^°  Cornill,  ihid. 


212  JOURNAL    OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE 

evidently  genuine.  The  Messianic  passages  are  the  natural 
consequence  of  the  fulfilment  of  these  expectations. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  nothing  in  the  character  of  the 
passages  themselves  which  makes  the  Isaianic  authorship  improb- 
able. The  vocabulary  is  similar  to  that  of  the  passages  accepted 
as  genuine.  The  characteristics  of  the  king  were  drawn  largely 
from  the  stories  of  Saul,  David,  and  Solomon  in  the  J  portion 
of  the  Book  of  Kings,  which  existed  in  written  form  in  the  time 
of  Isaiah.  The  effect  of  the  expressions  used  is  precisely  similar 
to  that  produced  by  the  conventional  series  of  epithets  in  the 
inscriptions  of  Assyrian  kings — formulae  which  would  certainly 
be  known  to  Isaiah.  Other  phrases  suggest  the  forms  of  address 
used  in  the  Tell-el  Amarna  letters  to  the  king  of  Egypt.  These 
forms  would  be  expected  to  occur  in  the  court  style  of  the 
Hebrews,  who  instituted  their  kingdom  in  imitation  of  their 
Canaanite  neighbors. 

The  king  is  thus  a  real  not  a  mythological  figure,  since  the 
epithets  applied  to  him  are  all  parallel  to  those  used  of  actual 
rulers.  Further,  no  reference  to  a  mythological  Messiah  has 
yet  been  found  in  the  literature  of  Egypt  or  of  Babylonia  and 
Assyria  from  which  the  Hebrew  conception  might  have  been  bor- 
rowed, although  there  are  parallels  in  Egyptian  writings  to  the 
prediction  of  an  illustrious  king.  The  picture  of  the  peace 
among  the  animals  may  have  been  drawn  from  the  myth  of  Para- 
dise, but  is  used  evidently  to  emphasize  extraordinary  prosperity 
and  not  intended  to  be  understood  literally. 

Finally,  such  passages  as  II  Sam.  7 :  5  ff .,  Jer.  23  :  5  ff.,  prove 
that  a  hope  for  a  worthy  successor  to  David  was  held  in  the 
period  before  the  exile.  It  seems  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
Isaiah  was  the  originator  of  that  hope,  and  that  the  Messianic 
passages.  Is.  1 :  24-27  ;  9:1-7;  10:33-11:10;  32  :  l-6(  ?),  were 
the  work  of  Isaiah. 


VITA 

I,  Louise  Pettibone  Smith,  was  born  in  Ogdensburg,  N.  Y., 
October  4,  1887,  my  parents  being  Alonzo  Albertus  Smith  and 
Louise  Pettibone  Smith.      I  was  prepared  for  college  by  the 
Ogdensburg  Free  Academy,  and  by  the  Balliol  School,  Utica, 
N.  Y.,  and  entered  Bryn  Mawr  College  in  October  1904,  receiv- 
ing the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts  in  June  1908.      For  three 
N^  years  after  graduation,   I  taught  in   Hardin   College,   Mexico, 
I  Mo.,  two  years  as  assistant  in  English,  one  year  as  associate  in 
/  Latin.    In  the  summer  of  1911, 1  attended  the  summer  quarter  of 
/   the  University  of  Chicago,  taking  courses  with  Professors  J.  M. 
*^  ^Smith,  Herbert  L.  Willett,  and  Lewis  B.  Baton.     In  1911-12, 
leld  the  Graduate  Scholarship  in  Semitic  languages  at  Bryn 
Mawr  College  and  in  1912-13,  1914-15,  the  Resident  Fellowship, 
taking  courses  with  Prof.  George  A.  Barton.     In  1913-14,  I  held 
the   Thayer  Fellowship   of  the   American   School   of   Oriental 
Research  in  Jerusalem,  and  from  October  1913  to  June  1914, 
I  traveled  and  studied  in  Palestine  and  Egypt  under  the  direc- 
tion of  Prof.   George  L.  Robinson   of  McCormick   Theological 
Seminary.      The    summer    of    1914   was    spent    in    London    in 
research   at   the   British   Museum.      In    1915-18,    I   have   been 
instructor  in  the  department  of  Biblical  History  in  Wellesley 
College. 

My  graduate  work  at  Bryn  Mawr  has  been  done  under  the 
direction  of  Prof.  George  A.  Barton;  the  subject  of  my  dis- 
sertation was  suggested  by  him,  and  the  work  has  been  done 
under  his  direction.  For  suggestions  of  additional  references 
and  corrections  I  am  indebted  to  Prof.  J.  M.  P.  Smith  of  the 
University  of  Chicago. 

I  am  very  glad  of  this  opportunity  to  express  my  gratitude 
to  Prof.  Barton,  for  his  help  and  guidance  and  his  unfailing 
interest  during  the  past  seven  years. 


■z 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 

'  2   JAN  1948 

LIBRARY  USE 

1 

DEC  11  1951 

24Feb'53HDA 

f£B2  5l953U' 

n^t5  CO 

LD  21-100m-9,'47(A5702sl 

3)476 

m 
I 


